imported>Pat Palmer |
|
| (100 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{checklist | | {{subpages}} |
| | abc = Linux
| |
| | cat1 = Computers
| |
| | cat2 =
| |
| | cat3 =
| |
| | cat_check = y
| |
| | status = 2
| |
| | underlinked = y
| |
| | cleanup = y
| |
| | by = [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:49, 7 April 2007 (CDT); [[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 12:47, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| }} | |
|
| |
|
| ==first comments== | | ===Using archive pages automatically=== |
| Is anyone else amused about how cautious the first paragraph is? It's like two points of view are both trying to express their arguments in one sentence. I'd almost say we should just have a minor heading about Linux vs GNU/Linux. [[User:Nick Johnson|Nick Johnson]] 11:06, 22 February 2007 (CST)
| | 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> |
| | [[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 :) |
|
| |
|
| I wonder if that is not obtained when starting with MIMIX as the start for Linus Torvald's endeavour to create a multipurpose unix version. Put that into historic context to the ''free software'' becoming more popular, resulting in (now) consultancy companies prividing ''free open source linux'' such as Red Hat and the likes. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | [[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]] 11:12, 22 February 2007 (CST)
| | :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) |
|
| |
|
| I think "Linux" should be about Linux (the thing on kernel.org) and "Linux distribution" should discuss the operating system family &c. I really don't mean to say this in the context of any GNU/Linux name debate (note that I didn't suggest an article named "GNU/Linux distribution"), but the coincidental placement of this comment might make it seem that way. Rather, I think that this is more precise terminology, and that both articles would be able to contain very different sets of information, as a kernel and a family of operating systems are rather different things, even if this family of operating systems is defined by being based around said kernel. [[User:Raymond Pasco|Raymond Pasco]] 20:59, 28 March 2007 (CDT) | | ==<big><b>The big re-write</b></big>== |
| | 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) |
|
| |
|
| I agree with Raymond - [[Linux (disambiguation)]] may be necessary, with links to [[GNU/Linux]] and [[Linux Distribution]] in that disambig. article. RMS would have a fit if he saw just Linux as its own, standalone article. [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 11:53, 31 March 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. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 20:32, 23 April 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| ==Too techie still?==
| | 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) |
| OK this article has come a long way, however is it too technical? Should we explain what an operating system is on the Linux page? Should we list examples of other OSes such as Windows and Mac OS X? I realize we lean too much toward technical articles sometimes... what can make this more accessible to Joe Schmoe? [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 12:18, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| :I agree completely. I think it'd be a great idea to explain everything in layman's terms, and gradually build the reader's knowledge. Also, perhaps we should use a higher resolution image of Tux (we need to explain that, too), such as [http://www.arabx.com.au/tux/large/tux_giant.png this one]. [[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 12:24, 6 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. -[[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) |
|
| |
|
| ::The solution to the resolution problem would be to use a Scalable Vector Graphics (svg)-based image file - its scale is decided by the user (I shoulda thought of that one). I'll try and find a decent one of Tux, that has an acceptable license [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 12:31, 6 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) |
|
| |
|
| :::OK well MediaWiki doesn't like svg files (it says the file is corrput). I guess I'll try and post something under technical issues on the forum asking about this. An SVG is the best way to do this. We'll see what the forum says. [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 12:48, 6 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]] |
|
| |
|
| :::According to this [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,380.0.html forum post] SVG isn't going to be supported any time soon. Oh well. Leaving the png you uploaded is the best thing to do I spose. --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 14:03, 6 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) |
|
| |
|
| ==we're not a manual== | | == Refresh / rewrite needed == |
| I really don't like the section on File System, and other parts of this article that read like a technical manual. I don't think the world needs another book describing the gory guts of Linux. Instead, I think we should describe (briefly) what Linux is, when it came about, and what differentiates it from other operating systems (i.e., it's free, it runs on Intel chips like Windows, it runs on cheap hardware, it's like UNIX and lots of people LOVED unix and wanted to continue using it (perhaps rather than learning new stuff? OK, that's low, I know, I know). Anyway, that's where I think we should be going with this article. All the old stuff has been written about, on the web, ad nauseum. Just Google file permissions and see what you get![[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 00:45, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::OK, I've just gone and removed that section on file system, and I'm archiving it [[Talk:Linux/FileSystem|here]] in case anyone is offended.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 01:18, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
| | 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 agree with you there Pat... if someone wanted to find out how the Linux filesystem is laid out there are resources online for this (the Linux Standards Base defines the filesystem)<br>As you said... "we're not a manual" --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 04:05, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
| | == 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. |
| :::I think we should devote a new article to it. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 12:47, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
| | --[[User:John Altobelli|John Altobelli]] 01:01, 6 March 2009 (EST) |
| | |
| ==Getting close to '1' Status== | |
| Do you guys think this article is ready for 1 status? I honestly think it is... the
| |
| [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Computers_Developed_Articles Developed Articles] page describes this as "complete or nearly so," which I think the Linux article most definitely is --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 12:41, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and change the status to 1. You did a great job cleaning it up. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 12:47, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| I can't agree. The article on Linux ''has'' to be longer and meatier than this. I'm not saying it's not a great article as it stands--it is--it just lacks huge amounts of information about the history of Linux, different distributions, the philosophy behind it, the sociology of its development, and so forth. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:49, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :How long is the correct length of an article such as this? Should the Linux article be judged by sub-articles that should be created to cover things? Shouldn't lengthy, detailed [[History of Linux]], [[Philosophy of Linux Development]], etc articles be their own article, and the main Linux article just a brief overview that acts as a front-end to these "drill down deeper" articles? I'm genuinely curious of what the CZ policy will be on this, for my future edits --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 13:07, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| I think it needs more work; it's not necessarily a matter of length, but of the style of the writing. To me, the story of Linux is high drama; we can make this better. So let's settle for staying at 2 or even 1 for awhile.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 20:20, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :lol that's the problem with being a geek and not a writer. I'm good with the geek stuff... "outlook not so good" on writing dramatic prose about Linux that grips the reader --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 04:15, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Tux image ==
| |
| | |
| Do any of you know whether the PNG I uploaded of Tux still falls under the license Eric described? I haven't changed what he wrote yet, so please do if you find that it is not accurate. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 12:06, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==[[Linux]] compared to [[Microsoft Windows]] and [[Mac OS X]]==
| |
| Is having the logo in the infobox consistent? If you look at the articles on the other two OSes they both have screenshots, not mascots. I understand that there are a whole plethora of desktops we could show off (GNOME, KDE, FDWM, WindowMaker, etc etc) but don't you think we should pick one and go with it, for consistency's sake? --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 12:57, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :That's a good point. Wikipedia has Tux at the top. I've honestly never thought of that before. Either way is fine with me. I'll go ahead and revert it to how it was before. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 13:02, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::This kind of collaboration is what I sorely missed at Wikipedia :0) --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 13:04, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::That's one of the problems I have with that site. Heh. I finally figured out how to revert to a previous version via the links :D --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 13:07, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::If I get around to it I'd like to add other OSes such as [[Amiga OS]], [[BeOS]], etc and I think it'll make sense to follow the same infobox-style pattern we've got with Linux, Windows, and OSX --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 13:12, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::::This infobox is somewhat weird, because there's actually no default user interface, and latest stable release is supposed to be something like "OS X v10.4" or "Vista", not the kernel version. --[[User:Alex Bravo|Rion]] 17:56, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::::Just because there's no default UI doesn't mean that the majority of people don't use it. Should we have a screenshot of a command-line instead? Also re: kernel version: Yes but what is the alternative? The only other option would be to list versions of distros... and then which distro should we use? Ubuntu would be a decent candidate if we went that route... Hmm. Dunno what the best option here is --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 23:14, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::::::Perhaps we should take a screenshot of the Linux kernel after booting like you said - no distribution whatsoever. This can be done with an emulator fairly easily. I'll do that so we can see how it looks. As for the version, definitely the kernel IMO. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 23:33, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| I just edited [[Linux/Draft]]. That's one way of doing it too I suppose. Maybe the two or three most popular distro versions? --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 00:07, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :What's the draft article for? --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 00:12, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Just to give folks like you an idea of what it can look like before it goes live lol. Also I edited [[Linux kernel]] and added the infobox, with the "Default user interface" being [[Command line]]. Should the Linux/Draft article be the main article you think? --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 00:20, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::The main article we edit until our work is approved you mean? --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 00:23, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::No no no lol. I just created the draft article to get an idea of "if the thing looks right" before I threw it up on the main page. We can create Draft articles if we want (see [[Computer/Draft]], although they're not the "official" Draft articles until [[Linux]] gets approved by editors and protected --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 00:41, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Style issues==
| |
| In addition to Dr. Sanger's guidance above about adding "history of Linux, different distributions, the philosophy behind it, the sociology of its development, and so forth," check out [[CZ:CZ4WP#Get_ready_to_rethink_how_to_write_encyclopedia_articles.21]] (and the links in the text there) and [[CZ:Article_Mechanics#Narrative_coherence_and_flow]] for some ideas to make this article even better. —–[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 04:05, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==First picture on the article==
| |
| I like the picture of a Linux desktop at the top of the article (though not, as noted below, details in a table below it). I feel the caption of the picture should be simpler for a non-technical person to understand. Maybe something like "A Linux desktop with windows open." And then, over on the picture page itself, there should be details like "GNOME desktop on Ubuntu Linux 6.10". Please realize that a non-techie reader will not have a clue about: GNOME, Ubuntu, or version numbers--at least not until they dig into our excellent articles! :-) [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 09:27, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Table at top is distracting; my vision for alternatives==
| |
| Glad to see the continued good work on this page! Please consider moving the table entries which are accumulating at the top of this page (except for the picture) to somewhere within the body of the article itself, or better yet, to sub-articles full of more detail. For example, the names and versions of distributions would belong, in my opinion, on the Linux distribution page, and not on the Linux page at all (except for one example perhaps). I feel that the table text distracts from the article text, and furthermore, all that detail that soon may intimidate a non-technical user who has happened upon our page in hopes of getting oriented about what Linux is. This top-level article should be the overall orientation for a not-too-technical reader, and many related articles (such as [[Linux_kernel]] or [[Linux_distributions]] can then become as "geeky" as we like.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 09:27, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| ==Use of "latest" and similar words==
| |
| Whenever something is said to be "latest", I think it's more helpful if you specify as of WHEN it's "latest". Readers cannot easily tell when an author added something that says, for example, "latest distribution". And even if it's the latest today when we add the information, but is it going to be the "latest" one year from now? I don't think we can count on this kind of information remaining current, so please do say "as of April 2006" or some such.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 09:27, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==I'm archiving the older stuff above==
| |
| To keep it easy to read in here, I'm archiving the stuff at the top. I'm not changing or removing any material, and I'll try to keep it all in the order in which it occurred.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 09:38, 9 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;"
| |
| |-
| |
| | style="text-align: center;" | '''<big>[[Discussion Archives]]</big>'''
| |
| |-
| |
| | style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 1, 4-9-07:''' [[Talk:Linux/Archive1]]
| |
| |-
| |
| | style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 2, date?:''' [[Talk:Linux/Archive2]]
| |
| |-
| |
| <!--
| |
| | style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 3, date?''' [[here]]
| |
| |-
| |
| | style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 4, date?''' [[here]]
| |
| |-
| |
| -->
| |
| |}
| |
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)
