We are still actively working on the spam issue.
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Linux/Archive 1"
(→Change GNU/Linux into Linux?)
m (→Change GNU/Linux into Linux?)
|Line 108:||Line 108:|
: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
: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 . 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.
:-- [[User:Cuckmaster|Cuckmaster]] ([[User talk:Cuckmaster|talk]]) 14:27, 8 December 2015 (EST)
:-- [[User:Cuckmaster|Cuckmaster]] ([[User talk:Cuckmaster|talk]]) 14:27, 8 December 2015 (EST)
Revision as of 20:32, 8 December 2015
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)
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)
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.
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)
I've deleted the Recommended Distributions and linked it to Babbies First Linux instead. -- Morpheus
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)
Recommended Distribution Add Request
Add GNU free distros (Alphine) and Void (not GNU free, it uses glibc and the bloated core utils IIRC).
- 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.
Change GNU/Linux into Linux
- 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.
- 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)
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 --~~~~
P.S.: This discussion will be closed at 01/01/2016.
P.P.S.: Any opinion that comes from accounts that are made after 07/12/2015 will be disregarded.
- 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 GNU coreutils are not a necessary component of a Linux distro, which is precisely why there are distros without the excessively 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.
- 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.
- 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'.
- 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)