Talk:Linux/Archive 1

This is an archive, to discuss something about GNU/Linux, please go to Talk:Linux.

I have removed the cleanup tag. This is probably one of the best articles, and "needs more distro comparisons" doesn't seem like a very good reason to single it out for cleanup. The whole wiki needs more content. I also removed the citation request on Mint's closed-source browser plugins being security holes. We don't need citations on the sky being blue. God (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2015 (EDT)

openSUSE is not affiliated with RHEL. it is not based on RHEL or Fedora, it uses a completely different package manager, the only similarity is that devs chose to use the .rpm format for packages, instaed of creating their own. they are financially backed(SLE) by RH though. --Bisasam (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2014 (EST)

Does anybody actually use Maui? I think I've only seen it mentioned on /g/ once. Tibs (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2014 (EST)

i have never had success with rufus. Win32DI is free software, and easier to use. It has always worked for me, just to let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bisasam (talk • contribs) 00:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Crunchbang

I would Argue that Crunchbang is not easy to use. I've been around long enough to know that it's one of the main distros people post help threads about. Every time any newbie finds themselves wanting to configure their printers, samba shares, keyboard shortcuts, power management, multiple monitors, or any number of other things... they must rely on extra applications and/or manually configure plain text files. While this is stupid easy for those of us who are more intermediate, newbies shouldn't be expected to ever have to deal with that. For this reason I really think we should only put distros that come with full DEs in the "Easy to use and install" section.

Agreed. Crunchbang's main item is that it is Debian stable, pre-riced for laptops. Root (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Arch-based

Arch-based distros are not recommended for the following reasons:

• They add nothing to the experience of using Arch
• Are maintained by incompetent and untrustworthy individuals (see here and here)
• perpetuate the myth that Arch is hard to install
• defeat the purpose of using Arch in the first place
• normally come with the tagline 'Arch without autism', given the word autism's misdefinition on 4chan could scare one away from something they would like to try
• just can't compare to DEB or RPM distros who normally have corporate backing as well as a strong community

If you're going to dispute this, please do it in the talk page, not through editing wars. That said, I'm going to remove the 'Arch-based' section again because I can and want to. --Enmarei (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2015 (EDT)

Recommended Distributions

I've deleted the Recommended Distributions and linked it to Babbies First Linux instead. -- Morpheus

Header

Since this page has been copy-protected due to idiots in a pointless edit-war, I can only add my suggestions. I suggest that we add to the top of the page "This article is on the GNU/Linux System. For the GNU Project, see GNU" or something to that respect. It may also be beneficial to add "This Article is about the GNU/Linux system. For the Free Software Foundation, see FSF" --The One, The Only... Chocolate Chip! (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2015 (EST)

Implemented. --Morpheus (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2015 (EST)

Recommended Distribution Add Request

Add GNU free distros (Alphine) and Void (not GNU free, it uses glibc and the bloated core utils IIRC).

-- Galactus (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2015 (EST)

Void also have a musl-libc version, but it's still using the bloated GNU coreutils. --Morpheus (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2015 (EST)

Yes, gentoo as well. The coreutils can easily be replaced, I see no reason to call it GNU/something to be fair. At least not anymore.

Check this crap out: Various implementations of the 'cat' command and implementations of echo.c. Bloated. Disgusting.

-- Galactus (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2015 (EST)

Anyway, I'm going to move over the "Recommended Distros" to Babbies First Linux instead, I see no point in 2 kinds of recommendation. --Morpheus (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2015 (EST)

Some small fixes

I can not edit the page due to it being protected. The UNetbootin link should be updated to https://unetbootin.github.io/ as it now redirects there.

The GNOME Disk Utility Method section is outdated. That info was taken from the Arch wiki and the right click context option is no longer present in recent GNOME versions. Please update the section text to the following:

'''GNOME Disk Utility Method'''

Any distribution running GNOME can easily make a bootable USB stick through gnome-disk-utility. First make sure you don't need any of the data on the USB stick! Next, open GNOME Disks and select the USB stick in the list. Unmount it via the stop button. Lastly, click the advanced tools gear icon, restore disk image and select your ISO file. When the process is complete you can eject the USB stick and boot from it. 

source Ebay (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2015 (EST)

Implemented Morpheus (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2015 (EST)

Change GNU/Linux into Linux?

Since we received a request (and this would affect the wiki), a general consensus must be made. However admins will remain neutral, and general consensus will come from users. All first-level replies (one colon) must contain your stance, Support, or Against, any discussions, argument, or rebuttals must be done from second-level replies (two colons). The format of your stance would be like this:

:'''Support''':
:Your reasons.
:--~~~~
::Argument against an opinion --~~~~ (Make your sign inline with your argument from second-level replies.)
:::Argument against the reply --~~~~
::Another argmument against an opinion --~~~~

Let's hear your opinion on this. --Morpheus (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2015 (EST)

P.S.: This discussion will be closed at 20/12/2015 00:00 UTC

P.P.S.: Any opinion that comes from accounts that are made after 07/12/2015 will be disregarded.

AGAINST:

I personally believe that it should be kept as GNU/Linux. There is a separate article for Linux, the kernel, already. /g/ is more prone to call it Linux, but /tech/ is more prone to calling it GNU/Linux. I myself call it GNU/Linux due to myself being an FSFag, but that is just me. Technically, the majority of systems running the Linux kernel have a GNU Userland, but some systems listed (such as Arch) don't contain any of the GNU Core Utilities on first install. But Arch Linux is... weird with a lot of criticisms. I think that it is fine the way it is named now, and changing the name of the article might drive away other FSFags, and perhaps /tech/ users as well. FSFags are almost expected to always call it either GNU/Linux, or the lesser used GNU+Linux. This is due to them believing in the philosophies of The GNU Project, as well as living the "GNU/Life" as I humorously put it, and The GNU Project requests that the system be referred to as such. Members of the much different Open Source community do not follow the principles of The GNU Project at all, and therefore call it Linux with complete disregard to The GNU Project's wishes. Therefore, this issue comes down to not a question of changing the name of this article, but to the Social-Political issue of who has majority influence on this wiki: Members of the GNU/Life or Members of The Open Source Initiative. Since the wiki already has the article titled "GNU/Linux", I believe it would be fine to keep it under this name.

--The One, The Only... Chocolate Chip! (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2015 (EST)

Support:

The GNU coreutils are not a necessary component of a Linux distro, which is precisely why there are distros without the excessively 1091803 bloated coreutils, which use less complex, arguably more secure implementations. If we are going by importance, it should be Xorg/Linux, or Wayland/Linux, which is the ONE thing ALL distros have in common—Alpine is listed under GNU/Linux despite not using the GNU coreutils (it does use the GNU C compiler), or glibc (which is universally deemed more important to the functioning of a distro than the coreutils, which can easily be replaced). Fuck GNU's bloated software.

Linux can be compiled with LLVM. You can use musl instead of glibc. The busybox coreutils, or even another userland of your choice if you're tech savy. LLVM/Clang as opposed to GCC. There you go, a GNU-free distro that uses the Linux kernel and just werks, whilst being less bloated at the same time.

-- Galactus (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2015 (EST)

I don't quite understand why everyone views the GNU Core Utilities as bloated. This is a common criticism against use of any GNU UNIX system, but first off: It's not about software quality. It's about freedom. If you don't understand that, then join the Open Source movement. It's not the Free Software Movement you're looking for. Second, the GNU Core Utils only look bloated. The comparison in which you linked is a comparison of "echo.c". The first is expected. It is a very simplistic command in System V UNIX due to no need for license disclaimers, or no need for help menus (I am pretty sure there was no common man or help menus in System V), and due to the time in computing it was made, it did not need custom bell returns.

Now, the GNU version of echo.c only looks bloated. Look closer, and you can see that it is actually mostly the license disclaimer and the various comments. Look deeper: author's names? Not necessary, but still nice. Look closer. Carriage returns? Having custom carriage returns is useful. Keep scrolling. Bell commands implemented directly into echo.c? Unneeded but incredibly useful. The version with all the things that make it look bloated is 274 lines. Now, if one were to remove the license disclaimer, comments, and author names, as I have done here, it already looks less bloated, reaching only 225 lines. This includes the help data, the custom carriage returns, and the bells. All of them are not necessary for it to function, but all of them are wanted and/or useful nonetheless. I frequently use the bells and carriage returns for my own scripts. 255 lines is not bad as it does what it is intended to do, with the customization included. And at 255 lines it is 5.8kb. At its original length, it is 7.5Kb. This small of a program is ridiculous to call bloated.

Now, if you wanted to argue that multiple programs in the GNU Core Utils seem redundant, I would not be against that. I would agree with you. If ls is provided, I do not see the need for dir or vdir as they only perform special versions of ls but are completely different programs. --The One, The Only... Chocolate Chip! (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2015 (EST)

AGAINST:

It is possible to run a Linux based OS with no GNU software, but the majority of distros still use GNU software by default. The FSF has been the largest single contributor to Linux, so we should respect their wishes in referring to it as GNU/Linux formally. Using "Linux" or "Linux-based OS" to refer to a common distro like Ubuntu is fine in casual conversation because it is awkward to pronounce GNU. In writing online it is only four extra characters. Many developers still use the name GNU/Linux on their websites and in their documentation, in particular Debian and Trisquel. Lastly, for practical purposes it is better to leave it as GNU/Linux. Old copy pasta dies hard. Changing it will probably just trigger users into edit wars.

--Ebay (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2015 (EST)

That's wrong though, the coreutils are not irreplaceable by any stretch of the imagination. They're extremely easy to replace, and whilst most distros do use GNU's bloated coreutils (which are disgusting, as shown above), there are some that don't, or don't include them by default, thus it is wrong to call it 'GNU/Linux', as such term is overly specific and not as inclusive (and no, I don't mean this in the same manner a SJW would).

Regarding your claim that the FSF is the single biggest contributor to Linux... it's quite simply wrong. If anything, the X.Org foundation is, or even Red Hat. The thing that makes a Linux-based distro 'Linux' is the kernel, the userland is easily replaceable, as is GCC and Glibc. Never mind the fact there is far more to a distro's userland than just the 'coreutils'. -- Galactus (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2015 (EST)

Sorry, I took that from an old Debian FAQ I was reading. I assume they meant the largest contributor in terms of building the philosophy, community, tools and licenses which made it possible. This was written in 2008 though. Obviously they are not the largest contributor financially or in terms of code changes. -- Ebay (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2015 (EST)

AGAINST:

RMS would roll over in his cushy, cheeto-encrusted beanbag chair. The FSF has been a gigantic (arguably the single most important, maybe aside from Red Hat) Linux contributor. No, not all distros use GNU coreutils, but MOST (especially the commonly used ones) do, including those usually discussed/shitposted about on /g/ and /tech/. In light of what the majority of our 'community' stands for, this should not be changed.

-- Cuckmaster (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2015 (EST)

AGAINST:

Totally goes against everything GNU/Linux stands for. I mean, have you TRIED installing GNU/Linux from scratch without the GNU coreutils? Fucking impossible.

-- Dankmemerton (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2015 (EST)

AGAINST:

it is currently impossible to run an operating system based on the lunix kernel to the point that we can use it just like we do with the gnu userland. therefore I vote no.

--Keboler (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2015 (EST)

Ever heard about Android plus Busybox? -- Galactus (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2015 (EST)

yes, i know about that, but it's android. not a desktop system like the lunix we all use in a distribution. not the same. when i can run dwm, firefox and ted on it i will be satisfied. --Keboler (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2015 (EST)

Are you saying Alpine Linux users can't run firefox or dwm?

Oh, and guess what, it's using musl libc and busybox. -- Galactus (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2015 (EST)

i know about alpine, they still use inetutils and gcc. it is not "gnu-free". --Keboler (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2015 (EST)

They could easily replace the GCC with LLVM and it would still work just fine. inetutils are irrelevant, just a minor collection of programs (that aren't even super important for most users), no more important than bash/zsh and so on. You GNUfags are completely irrational to the fact GNU is not VITAL for most systems. The section should be renamed because most distros are NOT called <name>+GNU/Linux. You have Debian, you have Gentoo Linux, you have Arch Linux and so on, so forth. You don't get to name the distros, the creators do, and as it stands, only a select few FSF endorsed distros call their distros <name>+GNU/Linux (e.g.: Trisquel GNU/Linux). Most of them follow the <name>+Linux, or simply <name>. --Galactus (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (EST)

After taking much consideration and insights from users, and the vote (5 against - 1 support)

VERDICT

1. Retain the original title.
2. Due to technical reason (See MediaWiki:Subpages), the 'talk' page must be moved, the talk page is considered a subpage of Talk:GNU because of that. Due to that reason, this page will be moved to Talk:Linux, Linux and its talk page will be moved to Linux (kernel), and Linux will be a redirect page to GNU/Linux.

The decision has been carried out.

---

Now, here's my personal stance about Linux (yes, I call it Linux), however it will not weigh any change to the wiki. And this is my personal opinion, and not in the name of the wiki.

In a typical modern distro, GNU has only 8% share, I'm not counting GNOME because it is no longer part of GNU Project, despite it is a GNU package. The effort to call it GNU/Linux is largely caused by ideological reasons. The FSF wants to promote themselves. However an overwhelming majority of users call it Linux. Remember, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, not Red Hat Enterprise GNU/Linux. Arch Linux, not Arch GNU/Linux. The only people that call it GNU/Linux are the FSF and Debian, out of respect.

I'm more inclined to use a politically neutral term, Linux, for obvious reasons, it is more common.

—Morpheus (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2015 (EST)

And that is using LOC as a metric, or it would be even lower, given how bloated GNU programmes are. -- Galactus (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2015 (EST)

And that is on 2011. systemd was still in development back then. FSF has largely using LOC to support their argument, however it can be refuted. —Morpheus (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2015 (EST)

It is no wonder their utils are so bloated then. They're all about that LOC count. :^] -- Galactus (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2015 (EST)

In retrospect I actually think that changing it to Linux wouldn't have been a bad idea; distributions are built upon the Linux kernel, not the kernel placed into the GNU utils. Probably after I've been using BSD for a bit. FWIW haha le fanny ebin reddit maymay Keboler (talk)

History

In the second paragraph, we can see this:

To read more about the history of the GNU project and Linux, see [https://gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html this article].

I propose that we make a section about history and delete the link, as the link has a bias tendency.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morpheus (talk • contribs)

Good idea. It is usually better to summarize articles and add their information to the wiki when practical. Using an external link in this manner is just lazy. --Ebay (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2015 (EST)