Talk:Debian

Debian architecture status

Since there seems to be an edit war on the Debian architecture list, here is a quick clarification on the topic.

The following architectures are now release architectures, meaning that RC bugs affecting them will cause a package to be removed from testing:

• amd64
• arm64
• armhf
• i386 (Yes, i386 still a release architecture despite there being no kernel and d-i release. It's NOT a Debian Ports architecture)
• loong64 (LoongArch was recently added and is no longer maintained by the Debian Ports team)
• ppc64el
• riscv64
• s390x

The following architectures are part of Debian Ports:

• alpha
• hppa
• hurd-amd64
• hurd-i386
• m68k
• powerpc
• ppc64
• sh4
• sparc64
• x32

Itanium (ia64) was removed from Debian Ports in 2024 (see the news here: https://www.ports.debian.org), loong64 was moved to the list of release architectures in December 2025 (see: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2025/12/msg00004.html).

This means that the current architecture list is wrong as it marks loong64 and i386 as architectures part of Debian Ports which is NOT true, they're NOT on the Debian Ports FTP server (http://ftp.ports.debian.org/debian-ports). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-44104-8 (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems loong64 and i386 are still on the Debian Ports FTP server. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 02:15, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Linux has an RfC

Linux has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Matheus Amaral (talk • contribs) 21:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

altered punctuation in citation quote

@Victor Matheus Amaral: inside the citation's quoted text, you changed the double quotes to single quotes:

The base system is now virtually complete (though I'm still looking around to make sure that I grabbed the most recent sources for everything), and I'd like to get some feedback before I add the 'fancy' stuff.

This alters the original text.  Are you firm in your belief that this is appropriate?
— Black Walnut ^talk 23:26, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I am glad you asked. Altering double quotes to single quotes when they are inside an already existing double quote is an established typographic practice to avoid visual confusion, and it does not alter the text in a problematic way — Victor Matheus Amaral 16:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for responding.  I am aware of this convention.  But it is used when one quotes a source directly in the main text.  You instead applied the convention to material in the citations section.  That situation is different.

In the main text, the prose is controled by the article's author who can apply artistic license, and adapt quoted materials while discussing them.  In a book's footnotes and especially in a Wikipedia citation, where we are not constrained but the cost of the printed page, one wants to preserve the original more accurately and more comprehensively.

Note also that the formating for citations is automatically generated.  Right now, the wiki encloses the text in a pair of double quotes which, I agree, is problematic for material that contains double quotes.  But the automated formatting could be changed globally, to accomodate such situations.  Eg to a formatting style that delineates the quoted matter by indenting it, rather than by quoting it.

Do you not see a problem in changing Murdoch's syntax in our citation, where the original is supposedly copied verbatim?  Note that Murdoch's writing is rather unique and idiomatic!
— Black Walnut ^talk 01:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It is an editorial choice, both styles are acceptable. I will not go against it, and I do not care if you change it — Victor Matheus Amaral 17:13, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Why remove the fact that GNU sponsored Debian?

@Victor Matheus Amaral: it is my impression that you removed mention of the GNU project's sponsorship of the Debian project, in your edit entitled "Merged paragraphs. Removed unsourced claims."  Yet, this claim was sourced.  Am I missing something?  What is your reason?
— Black Walnut ^talk 01:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the FSF, not GNU. I removed it because the exact same information is already in the lead, but I appreciate your question. — Victor Matheus Amaral 03:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I see.  I understand the impulse but it isn't correct.  The lead is meant to summarize the rest of the article, not replace it.  See the manual of style.
— Black Walnut ^talk 04:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the FSF contribution needs to be further explained in the body of the article, but I would not do that now. You are free to do that. — Victor Matheus Amaral 17:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Since you took the time to remove that material, please take the time to restore it, along with its citation.  There is no immediate need to expand it.
— Black Walnut ^talk 18:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Correction to derivation of "Debian" name

@Victor Matheus Amaral: I propose to add this citation and change "then-wife" to "then-girlfriend".  Do you object?
— Black Walnut ^talk 02:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not like to go against edits, but the source you provided doesn't state Debra explicitly, even if it's obvious he is talking about her. Also, this source does not remove the chance he may be civilly married but then would marry at the Church, or vice-versa. And even without these two doubts, the more accurate term would be fiancée not girlfriend, but he does not state what he considers her. — Victor Matheus Amaral 02:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's the best I have found and I doubt we will find better:  Debian wasn't notable in its early days and Ian's private life was never encyclopedically notable.  The existing wording in the article ("then-wife") is, without question, wrong.  Worse, our text is being quoted by reporters, further polluting the noosphere.  So, either we compromize on removing "then-wife" or we use the available citations to support what all of us who were around back then already know: the project was named after Deb, whom Ian later married.  I'll be satisfied either way.  Which would you prefer?
— Black Walnut ^talk 04:16, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

As stated by this guideline: "Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been published in a reliable source before you can add it." — Victor Matheus Amaral 17:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Very good.  So, we must remove "then-wife", as the existing sources do not specify when Ian married.  We have no source stating that he was already married when Debian was launched in 1993.  Do we have consensus on this?
— Black Walnut ^talk 18:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

You may be trolling. The reliable secondary source utilized explicitly use the term "then-wife" — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Linux is part of the unix family of kernels, not a family in its own right

@Victor Matheus Amaral: you have repeatedly changed "unix" to "Linux" in the article's infobox, despite edit summaries and HTML comments explaning why your changes are incorrect.

Your most recent change says:

Linux is not a "single operating system", we even have a whole article just for the Linux operating systems family.  Can you stop making edits based on personal assumptions?  Undid revision 1358122991 by Black Walnut. 

These are not personal assumptions.  They are the nomenclature used in this industry and the nomenclature on which Wikipedia also settled.  One more time, Wikipedia's choice on keywords for the family= parameter of "Template:infobox OS" is documented here.  It says:

The name of the family of operating systems that this version is a part of. Examples include 'Microsoft Windows', 'Unix-like' and 'Mac OS'; 'Linux' and 'Mac OS X' are not OS families

If you are referring to the article on Linux, its infobox clearly says: "OS family: Unix-like".  To which article are you refering?
— Black Walnut ^talk 22:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you read only the infobox? Here is the first paragraph of the article you mentioned: "Linux (/ˈlɪnʊks/ LIN-uuks) is a family of free and open-source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel." Also, why didn't you check the article before furthering this discussion? I already changed it to Unix-like for another reason. — Victor Matheus Amaral 22:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

(a) you are right: I looked only at the infobox.  I should have spent more time.  I apologize.  I see now that the Linux article, in its current form, uses terminology that muddies the waters.  That paragraph isn't strictly speaking wrong, when taken in context.  The cause is a long-standing ambiguity: "operating system" can refer to a kernel, a userland, or the combined whole.  Wikipedia's infobox, defines families based on kernels.  Specifically, the similarity of their core system calls.

(b) this is strange: I can see that the infobox now correctly says "Unix-like" but the history doesn't show that change having happened.  Perhaps there is a propagation delay.  I will check again tomorrow, if I can.

(c) I started this topic in response to your undoing my correction.  I was not aware of the subsequent change.

(d) there are limits to how much time I can put into Wikipedia and to how fast I can review changes being made.  Frankly, I cannot keep up with you.  I have already spent far too much time.

Thank you for restoring the term "Unix-like".
— Black Walnut ^talk 23:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Related Talk:Linux#c-Softwareperson1000-20260502132000-I dispute the existence of "Linux" as a family of operating systems

You should also go into the archives of this Talk page, start with Talk:Debian/Archive 10 for example Softwareperson1000 (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

and this one Template talk:Infobox OS/Archive 1#OS family Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)