Talk:Linux naming controversy

Need input

I believe this article says all that it needs to, but I could use plenty of input. I started a thread in the forum here. --Joshua David Williams 11:44, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

I would suggest starting out with a paragraph that describes the issue, and then gets into the history. We go over the creation of GNU first, then Linux, then the controversy, and by that point, people are like "huh?". I mean, maybe if it started as "The GNU/Linux naming controversy is a disagreement between the FSF and various Linux groups about...", it'd appeal to people who are just dropping by to answer a question they had. I mean, in the case of a short article, the reader is likely here because they got linked here from another GNU and/or Linux page internally or from another source. They want a concise, two line answer with support and details. We're giving them details and telling them "mentally summarize it yourself". I wrote on the forums that it sounds like a lecture, and that's what it is, it's us giving details and letting the reader put the facts together. --ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 12:13, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

We have conflicting edits. Here's what I wrote:

The GNU/Linux controversy is an argument held among many software enthusiasts of what to refer to a Linux operating system as. Technically, 'Linux' is just a kernel, that is, the core of the system. When Linux was first developed, the GNU toolkit was generally placed on top of the kernel to form a complete system. In order to attribute credit to the GNU development team, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) asks that Linux systems containing their software to be referred to as GNU/Linux systems. Not everyone is in favor of this convention, however. Perhaps the most common arguments against it include that it's unnecessarily long and harder to say, and that the Free Software Foundation is attempting to take credit for the work of the Linux kernel development team.

Which should we use? --Joshua David Williams 12:29, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

I think I like yours better. But one more thing; should we move this to GNU/Linux naming controversy? --Joshua David Williams 12:35, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

I think they're both good and we can use a blending of the two, or split and extend your paragraph into "Position of the GNU group" and "Position of Linux Advocates" sections. I mean, I think either work well. Let's see if others drop by in the next few hours and what they think. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 12:40, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

I think naming controversy might be superior, as there could be multiple controversies between GNU and Linux (GPLv3 stuff comes to mind, as do stances on binary-only drivers, etc). Let's see what others think, and let's look into how it's popularly used. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 12:40, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Wikipedia uses GNU/Linux naming controversy. I think that's a far better name for it. --Joshua David Williams 12:43, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Bold title

I'd suggest not putting the title in bold. See CZ:Article Mechanics#Bold titles ("the title of the article is an idiosyncratic phrase that does not name a single, particular item to be defined or briefly described") and my comment on CZ Talk:Article Mechanics. In fact, I would recommend starting the article with something more creative than "The GNU/Linux naming controversy is a ...". Fredrik Johansson 14:44, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Linux advocates

I think the article is quite clear. I suspect the reason you are doing these pieces, Joshua, is as a natural extension of your Linux article. You should use this opportunity to discuss the controversy on the same Linux page, since you really, really can't describe Linux as an operating system without adressing this controversy. --Morten Juhl Johansen 06:11, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Needs more balance...

This article is awfully light on information about the topic... It introduces the Linux and GNU project histories, but doesn't seem to say much of anything about the actual controversy/debate. It could really use some expansion.

In the intro, the justification for GNU-naming is mentioned, but no counter-argument to it is offered...

• I've often heard GNU-naming opponents point out that other open source apps like X11 can be considered more significant than all the combined GNU tools, by any metric (code size, frequency of use, availability of alternatives, etc.). So, X11/Linux?

• There is also the fact that the BSD utilities can be used as a complete replacement of the GNU tools, should anyone opt to do so. Similarly, the GNU tools can be used on a BSD system as easily as Linux. Additionally, there is much BSD code in Linux systems. So, BSD/Linux?

• Of course the counter-point to both is the importance of GCC; the one GNU project that is inescapably pervasive and currently irreplaceable, even in the BSD and proprietary-UNIX world. GNU/BSD? GNU/Solaris?

The justification of Linux-naming, for reasons of "simplicity," seem a pretty weak counter-point to stand on its own, when many much stronger reasons do exist. Ryan Cooley 11:42, 2 October 2008 (CDT)