Talk:Linux/Archive 1

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)

Change GNU/Linux into Linux

As Galactus explained in Talk:Tweaking Linux I propose to change GNU/Linux into Linux, and the article of the same name to be changed to Linux (kernel) --Morpheus (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2015 (EST)

All 'GNU/Linux' articles really. There is no point in calling it GNU anymore. As the infamous fabricated Linux copypasta states, if we're going by LOC, it's only because GNU is so fucking bloated.

-- Galactus (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2015 (EST)

The FSF insists in calling GNU/Linux because of LOC argument is a facade, they want to enforce their ideology into Linux (see the second-to-last paragraph). Still, they failed. Vast majority of companies AND communities still call them "Linux", such as Red Hat, SUSE, Ubuntu, Arch, Gentoo. --Morpheus (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2015 (EST)

Since this would affect many pages, a general consensus of this will be needed. I'll do something once I get home. --Morpheus (talk) 19:01, 7 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. --~~~~~

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