Talk:Linux (operating system)

Article Checklist for "Linux (operating system)"

Workgroup category or categories	Computers Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article?	No
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Greg Woodhouse 22:39, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

Linux talk archives

Archive 1, 4-9-07: Talk:Linux/Archive1

Archive 2, 4-11-07: Talk:Linux/Archive2

Concepts to be implemented

Please feel free to modify this list in any means necessary, and strikeout items that have been finished with the <s> tag. Also, please do not archive this section until all of these sections have been finished.

• The Cathedral and the Bazaar
• Trademark disputes
• 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

--Joshua David Williams 21:50, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Call for Approval

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. --Eric M Gearhart 18:00, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

It sounds like there's still a lot of work underway. In my opinion, it's still too early. Greg Woodhouse 21:59, 11 April 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! :) --Joshua David Williams 22:04, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

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. Stephen Ewen 03:19, 12 April 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. --Eric M Gearhart 03:51, 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.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'.

Compare with Alex' versus Alex's --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? --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.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. --Joshua David Williams 23:02, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Kernel type

Shouldn't microkernel and monolithic kernel both redirect to Monolithic versus Microkernel? --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. --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 Wikipedia article. --Joshua David Williams 19:49, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

I would leave it at 2 for now. I'm not done with this article.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. --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. --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.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." --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. --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. Greg Woodhouse 21:45, 11 April 2007 (CDT)