Talk:Linux (operating system)

Article Checklist for "Linux (operating system)"

Workgroup category or categories	Computers Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories]
Article status	Developed article: complete or nearly so
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	--Eric M Gearhart 18:00, 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

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)

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.

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)