imported>Nick Johnson |
|
| (32 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{checklist | | {{subpages}} |
| | abc = Linux
| |
| | cat1 = Computers
| |
| | cat2 =
| |
| | cat3 =
| |
| | cat_check = n
| |
| | status = 2
| |
| | underlinked = n
| |
| | cleanup = y
| |
| | by = [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 22:39, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| }} | |
|
| |
|
| {| cellpadding="1" style="float: middle; border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #eeeeee; padding: 5px; font-size: 90%; margin: 0 0 15px 15px; clear: middle;"
| | ===Using archive pages automatically=== |
| |-
| | name the archives Archive 1, 2 etc but with a space between them - they will be recognoized by the following template: <nowiki>{{archive box|auto=long}}</nowiki> |
| | style="text-align: center;" | '''<big>[[Linux|Linux talk archives]]</big>'''
| | [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:grey"> <font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 22:01, 1 May 2007 (CDT) Easy isnt it :) |
| |-
| |
| | style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 1, 4-9-07:''' [[Talk:Linux/Archive1]]
| |
| |-
| |
| | style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 2, 4-11-07:''' [[Talk:Linux/Archive2]] | |
| |-
| |
| <!-- | |
| | style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 3, date?''' [[Talk:Linux/Archive3]]
| |
| |-
| |
| | style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 4, date?''' [[Talk:Linux/Archive4]]
| |
| |-
| |
| -->
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Concepts to be implemented==
| | :Yes, it is :P Thanks for letting me know about that template :D --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 22:12, 1 May 2007 (CDT) |
| Please feel free to modify this list in any means necessary, and strikeout items that have been finished with the <nowiki><s></nowiki> tag. Also, please do not archive this section until all of these sections have been finished.
| |
|
| |
|
| *The Cathedral and the Bazaar
| | ==<big><b>The big re-write</b></big>== |
| *Trademark disputes
| | I've begun the big re-write, so don't freak out when you see the article is now a stub :-) I'll try to put all the information back in ASAP, so please bear with me. As a reference, I'm providing a link to the old revision [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Linux&oldid=100084936 here]. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 15:14, 21 April 2007 (CDT) |
| *Copyleft
| |
| *Database vendors switching to Linux
| |
| *Legality of codecs and free alternatives
| |
| *Devote an entire section to portability
| |
| *Lack of mainstream software support, especially gaming
| |
|
| |
|
| | :''Linux is an open source operating system. By strict definition, it is rarely seen by the user, because its job is to be a layer between the user environment and the hardware.'' That strict definition should be for the [[Linux kernel]] article, don't you think? [[Linux]] should be the broad general intro. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 20:32, 23 April 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 21:50, 11 April 2007 (CDT) | | True, but I thought it was important to clarify this to begin with. Perhaps we should move that part to the [[Linux controversy]] subsection of this article? --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 20:42, 23 April 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| ==Call for Approval== | | ==Latest releases== |
| Per [[CZ:Approval_Process]], as an author who has contributed significantly to this article (among others) I am requesting this article be submitted to the Approval process by an editor. --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 18:00, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
| | I agree with Pat that we shouldn't display the latest stable releases. These change fairly often, so the article won't be a credible source for that information. -[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 21:25, 20 April 2007 (CDT) |
| | ==about history== |
| | Linux was started in 1991 by a Finnish college student named Linus Torvalds. At the time, the majority of Unix systems were very expensive. The only affordable workstation environment was a proprietary system called Minix. Although the source code was included with this system, the license fee was still a bit pricey, and it was not as good as the systems the workstations in the universities were running. Actually the license for minix was FREE it was developed by a professor at the university where Torvald studied. Torvald used minix as base for linux and expanded it into a networked environment and only later into the open source - where being freely available for universities was his first primary goal. Solid stable and free to use. minix however was a very limited version of the two commercial unixes around (BSD and AT&T). |
| | :monolythic kernels are used by a variety of variations of linux but also microkernel linux/unix are abundant. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:grey"> <font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 21:58, 1 May 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| :It sounds like there's still a lot of work underway. In my opinion, it's still too early. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 21:59, 11 April 2007 (CDT) | | ::Well the Linux kernel may have been written by Torvalds, but the other 80% to 90% of the operating system stems from the [[GNU]] project of [[Richard Stallman]]. The impression that Torvalds did the whole thing should be avoided. Stallman deserves as much credit, if not more. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:41, 9 May 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| ::Although I think that what we have now is great, I too believe that there is plenty of information that could be added (see the checklist I added above). For now, I'm changing it back to status 2. Also, don't forget to leave the names of the previous people who've edited the checklist. Ciao! :) --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 22:04, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
| | Its probably important to mention about Ari Lemmke who was the person who named Linux and who first started the first Linux newsgroup, comp.os.linux<ref>https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/</ref>. --[[User:Lal Chandran|Lal Chandran]] |
|
| |
|
| :::This article really is not ready to be considered for approval. While it contains ''very'' good information, the style of it is very problematic. Please see [[CZ:Introduction_to_CZ_for_Wikipedians#Get_ready_to_rethink_how_to_write_encyclopedia_articles.21]] making sure to follow the links in the section. I tired to take a stab at it, but I am done for the night. Zzzz. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 03:19, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
| | == Rewrite needed == |
| | I rather think this article requires a rewrite - it should perhaps be reduced as to point to the Linux kernel, GNU project and the Linux controversy. Perhaps even better, just point it to the disambiguation page. |
| | Also, I am not too fond of "Unix-like" as an OS family.<br/> |
| | --[[User:Morten Juhl Johansen|Morten Juhl Johansen]] 06:15, 1 August 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| ::::I would ask and encourage Computers editors to be more proactive with giving guidance such as this more often... half the reason I called for approval was to find out what this article still needs. --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 03:51, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
| | == Refresh / rewrite needed == |
|
| |
|
| LOL, that's not to be encouraged! What actually brought me here was [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,779.msg6033/boardseen.html#new this forums post].
| | I agree with the others who are calling for a rewrite. We should distinguish between the kernel and distributions. I made a small change tonight because Ubuntu Hardy Heron is already old news. But the article needs much more work. I'm willing to schedule some time to collaborate. ''-- [[User:Tim Chambers|Tim Chambers]] 01:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)'' |
|
| |
|
| I also removed all the headers. One way to help create articles that are not modular is to remove them, and then write the whole narrative as a cohesive whole. The key headlines can be added once the article has reached or is near completion.
| | == History == |
| | | Sorry if I went a little long on the history, but I consider it a pretty complete one now (minus refs to be added soon). I think I would like to see the linux page as VERY short page with links to where everything else is. For example, Linux is made of a kernel, compiler, etc. It is packaged by distributions with [[list of distributions]]. Then move the history to linux_kernel since it has more to do with what Linux actually is over what I think this page should be (what someone new to FOSS would think Linux is: an operating system). If people like the idea and agree with the way I write (see history not this confusing discussions post), I'd be happy to write something up. If not feel free to digress to before I made the changes. |
| [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 05:04, 12 April 2007
| | --[[User:John Altobelli|John Altobelli]] 01:01, 6 March 2009 (EST) |
| | |
| :I'll take a look at the post when the forum's back up... right now its returning "Sorry, SMF was unable to connect to the database. This may be caused by the server being busy. Please try again later." And yes I realize I was being evil with the call for approval :) We just need more support over at the Computers Workgroup --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 05:25, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::-sigh- Pat was right when he mentioned that we need to keep in mind the point to every sentence. We have lots of good information, but we're losing the point to everything we say. We need to come up with a structure for the article and re-write this. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 08:58, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==reorg of old sections, new sections needed== | |
| Here's some suggestions for where else to take this article. I reorged the old ones into two simpler sections, Origins and Applications. What I think would help, now, would be a section on Linux' successes and failures in the marketplace...I have now moved the long summary that used to be here into the article itself.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 22:16, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Which is correct? ==
| |
| | |
| Is it Linux' or Linux's? Do any of you know which is technically correct?
| |
| | |
| :As far as I know it would be Linux's, because although the name ends in an 'S' sound it's not actually an 'S'.<br/>Compare with Alex' versus Alex's --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 15:03, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == GNU/Linux ==
| |
| | |
| Do you guys think the GNU/Linux controversy is notable enough to have its own article? --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 22:36, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :I wouldn't break that out at this time (unless this article becomes too big). I think it's pretty well covered out on the larger world wide web. However, if it really turns you on, perhaps you should go for it.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 23:00, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::The history of the open source community is really my niche. I might have a go at it after I've finished the [[Tux]] article. Right now I'm having a bit of a hard time finding the correct chronological order for that one. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 23:02, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Kernel type ==
| |
| | |
| Shouldn't [[microkernel]] and [[monolithic kernel]] both redirect to [[Monolithic versus Microkernel]]? --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 13:36, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| I'll take this silence as a "yes". If not, feel free to change the redirection pages. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 19:26, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Done? ==
| |
| | |
| Are you sure we're ready for the #1 status? Compare the information we have to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux Wikipedia article]. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 19:49, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::I would leave it at 2 for now. I'm not done with this article.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 20:11, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==This is a grump==
| |
| The "Origins" section now rambles and seems to lack purpose; it has become cluttered and uncertain. I originally organized it to center around the "upstart" Linus Torvalds taking on Tanenbaum. The important opening 2 or 3 sentences are--GONE, with no explanation. They've have been removed and a bunch of rambling stuff is now there. As a technical writer, I like to have a purpose in each section--a point to make. The point to make here, is that the creation of Linux by Torvalds astounded the computerati of the time. I don't want to start a revert war, but please think about whether it is "diffusing the purpose" when you go and just add facts to the top of a section someone just wrote.
| |
| | |
| I'd like to suggest that we start some kind of list, on this page, of random facts that we want to add, but aren't sure where to put them. I don't like to write about Linus Torvalds' intentions; I'm not a mind reader. I think the article should just talk about what happened, not what he was thinking. [Signature Missing]
| |
| | |
| :I think making a list of facts is a great idea. But as for what he was thinking, I beg to differ. We have an ample supply of evidence to suggest the reasons he created Linux in the first place. I have not yet had a chance to cite the entire article, but this will be done eventually. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 21:33, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Well the fact of the matter is that Torvalds didn't create Linux to "take on Tanenbaum." That argument between them happened later. I know it's not as dramatic, but Linux was started as a hobby, "nothing big and professional like GNU," that was picked up by the community. There's the dramatic "scoop" this section needs. --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 03:57, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| It seems like we have very different writing styles, and so I think we have to talk about writing styles, or else, I have to go away and work on something else for now. Please advise. Some of you know many more facts that I do. But facts listed willy nilly do not a story make. And Linux is a good story. Let's make it a good story, as well as factual.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 20:29, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :I do agree that the history of Linux makes a remarkable story, but please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, and not a novel. When you get a chance, please read [[CZ:Policy_Outline#Article_Standards]]. [Signature Missing]
| |
| | |
| ::Pat has a point though... our articles should "draw in the reader." See [[Life]] for a great example of an article that draws the reader in and keeps them "hooked." --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 03:57, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :"very successful as server, moderately successful as desktop; I'll bring statistics to prove this if asked"
| |
| :No disagreement here, but you are asked for the sake of precision and citation. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 21:33, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == "Much older Unix operating system" ==
| |
| | |
| I think you need to be a bit careful here. Unix certainly did start out as a single operating system, but there is now no one Unix operating system. Some people prefer the phrase Unix-like operating system for just this reason, while others will refer to "flavors" of Unix. Still another point of view is that what does and does not qualify as Unix is a matter of genealogy of the code base, while others reject this point ofg view as outmoded or irrelevant. Finally, I think it's very important to resist the urge to make polemical statments about Linux ''vis a vis'' other operating systems. The very phrase "much older Unix operating system" is a bit of a slam, and not appropriate here. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 21:45, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Yes this is a valid point - Unix is an OS in its own right. No need to slam it on the Linux article. --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 05:30, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::I worked at Bell Labs all during the '80's, into the 90's, and I worked with Unix flavors and taught it recently as faculty. I can personally testify that part of the attraction of Linux was the fact that its user experience is Unix-like. This is not an attraction I personally share; the command-line experience and shell scripting, of which I have done a lot, never did excite me, but I know that it does some people. The widespread desire fueling OSF through the '80's was for a Unix-like OS that ran on cheap hardware and didn't cost much. I have no problem at all saying "much older Unix operating system". As far as I am concerned, it should have died a long time ago but has been kept alive by people resistant to change. That said, I did grow to admire Linux and the energy and open source initiative fueling it, and I am now a fan, along with a lot of other slower "converts". There is no slam intended in saying that Unix is more than 30 years old, and Linux has a user experience like that. Think about it.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 21:40, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Well, yes, and Unix has developed considerably since it's original introduction. A modern Unix is very different from the one first developed at Bell labs. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 08:16, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Missing topics ==
| |
| | |
| *I see no mention of X11 and its role in graphical user interfaces for Linux.
| |
| *I see no mention of POSIX or POSIX compliance.
| |
| *I see that Wine is mentioned but not true virtualization (VMware, QEMU).
| |
| *I don't see any discussion of the Linux kernel and how it differs from traditional Unix kernels. What is innovative about Linux (kernel threads, etc.)?
| |
| *You do mention that Linux has enjoyed more success as a server platform but don't elaborate. What about Linux makes it a good fit here?
| |
| *You don't say anything about Linux on laptops.
| |
| *You really don't say enough about distributions. What makes Debian different from Ubuntu, Red Hat, SUSE, etc.
| |
| *You don't say much about groupware, office suites, etc.
| |
| *What are the advantages and disadvantages of Linux to a home user? a business user? a programmer? an artist?
| |
| *How might Linux fit into a heterogenous network?
| |
| *What about Linux security and SELinux?
| |
| [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 08:39, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| This is where we need to take a step back and look at an outline of "Subtopics." In my opinion Linux can be a general description to start off with.
| |
| | |
| *I see that Wine is mentioned but not true virtualization (VMware, QEMU).
| |
| :This would be in a [[Linux software]] or [[Software emulation]] article I'd think
| |
| | |
| *I don't see any discussion of the Linux kernel and how it differs from traditional Unix kernels. What is innovative about Linux (kernel threads, etc.)?
| |
| :This would be in [[Linux kernel]]
| |
| | |
| *You don't say anything about Linux on laptops.
| |
| :This would be in [[Linux]] probably
| |
| | |
| *You really don't say enough about distributions. What makes Debian different from Ubuntu, Red Hat, SUSE, etc.
| |
| :This would be in [[Linux distribution]]
| |
| | |
| *You don't say much about groupware, office suites, etc.
| |
| :Again this would be in [[Linux software]]
| |
| | |
| *What are the advantages and disadvantages of Linux to a home user? a business user? a programmer? an artist?
| |
| :This would "fit in" the main Linux article
| |
| | |
| *How might Linux fit into a heterogenous network?
| |
| :This would probably fit into a sub article like [[Linux and other operating systems]], that would talk about Samba, Active Directory, and NFS etc.
| |
| | |
| ==Linus' intentions==
| |
| I think only Linus Torvalds is qualified to talk about what his intentions were. If he has done so, please include a reference. If he has not done so, then those statements are rampant speculation.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 00:33, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Can the linux kernel be called monolithic? ==
| |
| | |
| Can the linux kernel be called monolithic if it has modules? Aren't those modules something that is kernel-like, and is not necessarily part of the kernel? I mean, you can insert or remove them (well, not so much remove them in newer versions).
| |
| | |
| I don't know the terminology, it just seemed weird to me, so I wanted to ask. --[[User:Nick Johnson|Nick Johnson]] 15:39, 18 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
Using archive pages automatically
name the archives Archive 1, 2 etc but with a space between them - they will be recognoized by the following template: {{archive box|auto=long}}
Robert Tito | Talk 22:01, 1 May 2007 (CDT) Easy isnt it :)
- Yes, it is :P Thanks for letting me know about that template :D --Joshua David Williams 22:12, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
The big re-write
I've begun the big re-write, so don't freak out when you see the article is now a stub :-) I'll try to put all the information back in ASAP, so please bear with me. As a reference, I'm providing a link to the old revision here. --Joshua David Williams 15:14, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
- Linux is an open source operating system. By strict definition, it is rarely seen by the user, because its job is to be a layer between the user environment and the hardware. That strict definition should be for the Linux kernel article, don't you think? Linux should be the broad general intro. Stephen Ewen 20:32, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
True, but I thought it was important to clarify this to begin with. Perhaps we should move that part to the Linux controversy subsection of this article? --Joshua David Williams 20:42, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
Latest releases
I agree with Pat that we shouldn't display the latest stable releases. These change fairly often, so the article won't be a credible source for that information. -Joshua David Williams 21:25, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
about history
Linux was started in 1991 by a Finnish college student named Linus Torvalds. At the time, the majority of Unix systems were very expensive. The only affordable workstation environment was a proprietary system called Minix. Although the source code was included with this system, the license fee was still a bit pricey, and it was not as good as the systems the workstations in the universities were running. Actually the license for minix was FREE it was developed by a professor at the university where Torvald studied. Torvald used minix as base for linux and expanded it into a networked environment and only later into the open source - where being freely available for universities was his first primary goal. Solid stable and free to use. minix however was a very limited version of the two commercial unixes around (BSD and AT&T).
- monolythic kernels are used by a variety of variations of linux but also microkernel linux/unix are abundant. Robert Tito | Talk 21:58, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
- Well the Linux kernel may have been written by Torvalds, but the other 80% to 90% of the operating system stems from the GNU project of Richard Stallman. The impression that Torvalds did the whole thing should be avoided. Stallman deserves as much credit, if not more. --Ed Poor 17:41, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
Its probably important to mention about Ari Lemmke who was the person who named Linux and who first started the first Linux newsgroup, comp.os.linux[1]. --Lal Chandran
Rewrite needed
I rather think this article requires a rewrite - it should perhaps be reduced as to point to the Linux kernel, GNU project and the Linux controversy. Perhaps even better, just point it to the disambiguation page.
Also, I am not too fond of "Unix-like" as an OS family.
--Morten Juhl Johansen 06:15, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
Refresh / rewrite needed
I agree with the others who are calling for a rewrite. We should distinguish between the kernel and distributions. I made a small change tonight because Ubuntu Hardy Heron is already old news. But the article needs much more work. I'm willing to schedule some time to collaborate. -- Tim Chambers 01:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
History
Sorry if I went a little long on the history, but I consider it a pretty complete one now (minus refs to be added soon). I think I would like to see the linux page as VERY short page with links to where everything else is. For example, Linux is made of a kernel, compiler, etc. It is packaged by distributions with list of distributions. Then move the history to linux_kernel since it has more to do with what Linux actually is over what I think this page should be (what someone new to FOSS would think Linux is: an operating system). If people like the idea and agree with the way I write (see history not this confusing discussions post), I'd be happy to write something up. If not feel free to digress to before I made the changes.
--John Altobelli 01:01, 6 March 2009 (EST)
