Talk:Linux/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Rust is officially part of linux mainline

https://open.substack.com/pub/weeklyrust/p/rust-is-officially-part-of-linux?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&shareImageVariant=overlay&r=3ea750

I think we can no add rust to the list ~2025-41654-52 (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Or, for a more official statement, Miguel Ojeda (13 December 2025). "[PATCH] rust: conclude the Rust experiment". linux-kernel (Mailing list)., as well as "The (successful) end of the kernel Rust experiment". lwn.net. 10 December 2025.. Guy Harris (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Alex rosenberg35, but it isn't play a minor role anymore ~2026-27193-3 (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Homepage

The Homepage points to the Linux Kernel, not the Linux Operating System.

Either this Link should be replaced with an Link to the Linux Operating System or removed because this is misleading and confusing people with the Linux Kernel. ~2026-33470-5 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no such thing as one "Linux Operating System". There are multiple different distributions, all based on the Linux kernel. As the article says, "Thousands of Linux distributions exist". Meters (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

properly address the importance of the GNU project near the top of the article

Due to the prevailing role software from the GNU project plays in the present day systems, it is relevant to mention near the top of the page the importance of GNU software and it should not be relegated deep into the article. User:Aoidh undid a change to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux&oldid=1340569658 on the grounds that the GNU project is mentioned, however the importance and prevaling role of the GNU project is not communicated clearly communicated. Here is an analysis of the article up to the point where GNU is first properly addressed. GNU is first mentioned in regards to the naming controvercy, then later as a historical note as a reason Linux was started. Next GNU is mentioned along with 386BSD to point out that they do not have Unix code which is hardly relevant. The next time the word GNU appears is in the GNU General Public License which is not the same as GNU software, and so such mentions of GNU should be ignored for this issue. Then while GNU project is talked about in the history section, it under "Precursors" which does not indicate GNU's relevant role in present day systems. Again under the same history section this time under "Creation" there is vague talk about GNU having to do with the history of Linux and this does not speak to the present day prevailing use of GNU software. Under section "Development" there is the first real mention of the use of GNU software in these systems, however even here it does not clearly communicate the fact that most systems use GNU software. Finally it is in the "Design" section that the GNU userland is for the first time acknowledged as a key part of most of the systems. The fact is that most systems today use GNU software and the GNU project is absolutely relevant and worthy of mention at the top of the article to tie it to the systems using the Linux kernel. The GNU project is not a techical detail that belongs in the design section as the first time it is properly addrsssed as a "key part of most systems based on the Linux kernel", this belongs to the top of the article. ~2026-12746-18 (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1340569658 is the edit in question. Changing the target of Open source to Free and open-source software while making it look like the link still takes you to Open source is somewhat of an WP:EGG issue. Saying that Linux includes {{most commonly software from the GNU Project}} depends on what you consider "most commonly" to be, and is contradicted by other content in the lede and article. The obvious example is that Android (operating system) is by far the most commonly used Linux-based operating system (and is the most commonly used of any operating system: Usage share of operating systems), most versions of which contain little to no GNU software. The current text in the lede about emphasizing the use and importance of GNU software in many distributions already addresses GNU software (with sources) without the unsourced ambiguity about what "most common" might mean. - Aoidh (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The open source thing I did was a mistake. "Most" would mean most systems distributions. I accept that my contribution there was bad and I don't need my revision to be reinstated but I want this issue to be considered, however I will retain my stance as stated here in the Talk, that the GNU project is still important enough I believe it belongs to the top of an article. As I said GNU is not a technical detail to be hidden deep in the article. I realize Wikipedia has for better or worse taken a side on the GNU/Linux naming controversy, but I do not believe this is grounds to obfuscate the presence of GNU on the system which I perceive this article to be doing. GNU is a very real part of the scene. ~2026-12746-18 (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

RfC on adding "GNU/Linux" to the lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the inclusion of the term GNU/Linux and the representation of the GNU Project in this article. Feedback is requested on the following proposal: Include the phrase "sometimes called GNU/Linux" immediately after the term "Linux" in the lead paragraph. — Victor Matheus Amaral 21:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Support as proposer: I find it appropriate to include "sometimes called GNU/Linux" after the term "Linux" in the lead. Excluding it favors one naming convention over another without encyclopedic justification, which violates our core policy of WP:NPOV. My arguments:

• It is often used by reliable secondary sources: , , , , , ,
• It is used by Debian, a major Linux distribution:
• It is used by many other distributions.
• If a layperson stumbles upon the term "GNU/Linux" across the internet, thinks of it as a distribution or something else rather than a synonym for "Linux," and searches for it on Wikipedia, they will probably get on the Linux article. However, they might get confused because the term is not present at first glance in the article, think they are on the wrong page, and simply leave.
• It is the preferred term by the GNU Project, the FSF, and adherents of the free software movement.
• It is not against the will of the creator: "It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much continue to call it 'Linux' ... The GNU people tried calling it GNU/Linux, and that's ok. It's certainly no worse a name than 'Linux Pro' or 'Red Hat Linux' or 'Slackware Linux' ... Lignux is just a punny name — I think Linux/GNU or GNU/Linux is a bit more 'professional' myself, but I'm not going to get gray hairs about this."
• It is a long-standing discussion in the Linux article that could end with a simple mention in the lead.

My arguments are backed by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."; "Significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages."

They are also backed by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."; "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts; (I provided IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library and PubMed Central; I also provided from PCMag and Linux.com (they are often used in Linux articles))

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; (GNU Project, the FSF, Debian, many other distributions, and the free software community, which are a significant part of the Linux community.)

Excluding "GNU/Linux" from the lead while it is used by reliable secondary sources is editorially biased, because it favors one naming convention over another without encyclopedic justification beyond aesthetics.

Some main Wikipedia articles that have less used and historical names in the lead:

• Saint Petersburg have "Petrograd" and "Leningrad".
• Iran have Persia.
• macOS have OS X and Mac OS X.
• VLC have "sometimes abbreviated as VMP".
• iOS have iPhone OS.

There are many other examples...

Some disclaimer against a common argument people try to use to get off topic: The term "GNU/Linux" does not imply that the majority of a Linux distribution's software should come from the GNU Project, it just asserts the historical fact that GNU was the foundation upon which Linux built itself. But this discussion is not about how important GNU is; it is about how often the term "GNU/Linux" is used to warrant inclusion in the first paragraph, and how it increases the encyclopedic value of the article. And still, the majority of distributions still use core softwares that are part of GNU project like grub, coreutils, glibc and gcc — Victor Matheus Amaral 21:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• Not as an alternate name for "Linux": Alpine Linux's "core OS" components (C library, shell, utilities), for example, don't all come from GNU, but its name includes "Linux", so it's "Linux" without being "GNU/Linux". It might be better discuss the "GNU/Linux" term in the text rather than in a parenthetical not claiming that Linux is "sometimes called GNU/Linux" without explaining when - and why - it's appropriate to use the term. It's already mentioned in the second paragraph; perhaps expand that, or break it out into a separate paragraph. Guy Harris (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Not in the first sentence, but GNU/Linux is already in the lead section. Also, according to Debian themselves, "Debian is a Linux-based operating system." I see nearly all major Linux distributions describing their software in relationship to Linux. There is consensus against the proposed change in the discussion above. Also, I agree that this would not meet Wikipedia standards for editing towards a neutral point of view. From WP:NPOV:
  1. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement,"
  2. "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view."
  3. "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."
  4. "In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. Although neutral terms are generally preferable, name choice must be balanced against clarity. Thus, if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question despite appearing to pass judgment." Also, also, the formatting of this RFC is also somewhat bogus, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep existing mention in second graf, do not move to lede. Second paragraph gives it correct amount weight per sourcing. Agreed with Rjjiii above. I'm also unimpressed that multiple editors brought up WP:BLUDGEONing concerns (concerns which I share), and your response was to IMMEDIATELY open an RFC. Please give this topic time for other people to contribute. Eyesinthefire (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Not in the first sentence: In short because of LeadRel. Also, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers#cite_ref-3 even though I agree with all of you. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Just so everyone here knows, I have started AN/I discussion about this user due to the WP:BLUDGEONing concerns, and the consistent POV pushing. It is also about the comments sent when someone opposes them, and when they don't reply. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 22:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's fine in the second paragraph, would be OK lower. That gives it the correct amount weight per the sources. Also see How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux? and GNU/Linux naming controversy. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - The term is already in the lede of the article, in boldface, with appropriate contextualization and in keeping with it WP:NPOV (and WP:UNDUE more specifically). Adding this to the lede sentence would disproportionately promote a POV term that is not used by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources to make it seem more prominent than it actually is. The prior discussions before this RfC have already addressed the rationales that the proposer has repeated here, and stand as valid reasons why such a change would not be an improvement or in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Aoidh (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Guy Macon VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 00:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aoidh and Guy Macon. If GNU had been missing from the lede, I can see making sure it's included, but it already is included, and this gives it undue weight for how it is characterized in reliable sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Guy Macon and Aoidh as well. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 01:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addition of "GNU/Linux" as an alternate name in the beginning of the introduction, after the term "Linux".

I find appropriate to insert "also known as GNU/Linux" in the first paragraph, after the term "Linux", because it is a widely used term, (as you can see in theses references: ) used by many distributions, including Debian, a major one. An argument to not include it is that the term is utilized in other parts of the article, such as in the second paragraph, but I disagree with that. If a layperson stumbles upon the term GNU/Linux across the internet, thinks of it as a distribution or something else rather than a synonym for "Linux," and searches for it on Wikipedia, they will probably land on the Linux article. However, they might get confused and uncertain because the term is not present at first glance in the article, think they are on the wrong page, and simply leave.

Also, I don't see any reason not to include such a minor addition which will bring significant encyclopedic value and increase interest in the article. Having it present at the beginning might make the user curious as to why it is used and encourage them to go deeper into the article. The only "reason" I might find for it not being present is paid editors by corporate entities trying to reduce the visibility of the GNU project, because of its anti-proprietary nature. — Victor Matheus Amaral 21:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to make negative speculations about the motives of others without evidence; see WP:ASPERSIONS. But if it will help, I can attest that I am not being paid nor have I ever been paid to edit Wikipedia in any way for any reason or to promote or advance any interest. If you have evidence about paid editing, that should be submitted to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. The placement in the lede follows policy (WP:NPOV) and the Manual of Style (MOS:LEADCLUTTER) in that it does not give a disproportionate amount of weight to a name that most third-party reliable sources do not typically use and avoids cluttering the first sentence with parentheticals and alternate names. - Aoidh (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I find that the guideline you provided supports the inclusion of "also known as GNU/Linux" in the first paragraph. According to it, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources, and as shown by the references above, GNU/Linux is a widely used and recognized term, which supports its presence in the first paragraph.

I also find that the argument against its inclusion, that the term is already used in other parts of the article, is directly contradicted by the guideline itself, which explicitly states that this should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage between the lead and the body of the article. Since the term is present in the body but not in the first paragraph, the discrepancy should be resolved by adding it to the lead, not the other way around.

I find it inaccurate to claim that the references provided are not reputable resources. IEEE Xplore, PubMed Central, and the ACM Digital Library are among the most reputable peer-reviewed academic resources available, they are considered the best in their respective fields, backed by major professional and governmental institutions such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and the Association for Computing Machinery. I don't see any reasonable basis for dismissing them as non-reputable.

I also find it inaccurate to claim that I cast any aspersion. I did not make any claim that any user is a paid editor, nor did I affirm that was the case or mention any user in particular. I simply pointed out that the only reason I could find for the exclusion of such a minor and well-supported addition would be the influence of paid editors in general, which is a known concern on Wikipedia and not a personal accusation directed at anyone. As such, I find that your accusation is not only unfounded but factually inaccurate, looking more to get off-topic than to address the actual argument. — Victor Matheus Amaral 22:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Just as a starting point to address the initial demand. I think that a person could be confused by not finding "GNU/Linux" in the first paragraph to be extremely unlikely. --McSly (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not agree with that claim. As demonstrated by the references provided, GNU/Linux is a widely used and recognized term, which makes the possibility of confusion far from "extremely unlikely." A layperson encountering the term across the internet and landing on the Linux article without finding it at first glance is a realistic scenario, not an unlikely one, especially considering that GNU/Linux is marked as a "nickname" of the Linux article in Wikidata. — Victor Matheus Amaral 00:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Coming here from Portal:FOSS: The first sentence seems like the wrong place to introduce "GNU/Linux". I think it would be clear to mention the GNU Core Utilities in the lead somewhere appropriate (currently they aren't covered in the lead) and to mention the alternative name "GNU/Linux" after that point. "Linux" and "Unix" are well-known names, but I don't encounter people in person who ever mention GNU. I also think it's more confusing than helpful to even mention the naming dispute in the lead as it will not impact most readers. Since this article, to an extent, covers Android, it would introduce a lack of clarity about whether Android uses GNU's coreutils. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not proposing to include the naming dispute itself in the first paragraph, only the alternative name, which is standard practice in Wikipedia articles. The naming dispute is a separate topic and should not be confused with a simple mention of a widely recognized alternate name.

As for the concern about Android and GNU Core Utilities, that is a separate issue that can be addressed in the body of the article, and is not a reasonable basis for excluding a widely used alternate name from the first paragraph. — Victor Matheus Amaral 01:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I noticied that you think the term "GNU/Linux" strictly imply that every or the majority of the components of a distribution must come from the GNU project. The name reflects a historical and foundational fact: the GNU project, developed the essential tools, including the GNU Compiler Collection, the GNU C Library, Bash, and the GNU Core Utilities, that made a complete, functional operating system possible. When Linus Torvalds released the Linux kernel in 1991, it was combined with these pre-existing GNU tools to form a complete system. Without the GNU project, there would have been no complete operating system to pair with the Linux kernel in the first place.

The name GNU/Linux therefore acknowledges this historical contribution, not a strict inventory of present components. Just as one does not strip a country of its name because it has modernized its infrastructure, a distribution does not cease to be GNU/Linux simply because it has replaced certain GNU components with alternatives. The GNU project laid the foundation upon which the entire Linux ecosystem was built, and that contribution remains relevant regardless of whether a particular distribution still ships every GNU tool today. This is precisely why major distributions such as Debian explicitly recognize and use the term GNU/Linux. — Victor Matheus Amaral 01:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I will also point out, that in the widely recognized "BSD family" of operating systems, there are internal differences between each, and importantly, changes that have been made to the systems over time such that projects like FreeBSD and OpenBSD and NetBSD have diverged in substantial ways from the original Berkeley's Unix distribution's source base, and yet, no one ever disputes the fact that the BSD systems are a part of the BSD family lineage, just because some software has been rewritten along the years. So the BSD example supports the case that the historical lineage takes precedent over the specific technical composition of the system, so long as the same overall general Unix-like design remains intact. The BSD systems are still BSD and no one disputes that, hence the GNU systems which use Linux are still GNU too. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think having it in the second paragraph (as it always was) is enough. As you mention, LeadRel says facts in lede should be ordered by proportionate coverage, and the "GNU/Linux" part has nowhere near the coverage of the other facts in the first paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think moving it to the lede is necessary. The second paragraph already details the Linux vs. GNU/Linux distinction, and I would guess that the vast majority of current secondary sources refer to the operating system as Linux. I've been working on Copy Fail, so here's a few reliable examples of of secondary coverage about that:

- https://www.theverge.com/tech/922243/linux-cve-2026-3141-copy-fail-exploit

- https://arstechnica.com/security/2026/04/as-the-most-severe-linux-threat-in-years-surfaces-the-world-scrambles/

- https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/an-hour-of-scan-time-is-all-it-took-copy-fail-flaw-impacts-all-linux-kernels-released-since-2017-so-patch-now-or-face-the-consequences

At no point is "GNU/Linux" mentioned, despite one of the key issues of this bug being rollout by distributions rather than anything on the kernel side. As much as "GNU/Linux" may be more accurate to describe the process of its creation and use, to my knowledge secondary sources primarily use "Linux" to refer to the operating system, and we are not here to right great wrongs. Eyesinthefire (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you got confused, this article is about the family of Linux operating systems, not the kernel itself. The copy fail vulnerability was present exclusively in a module of the kernel, that's why the only term utilized was "Linux". I also know that the majority of times the term utilized by secondary sources is "Linux", because it's simpler, but it does not diminish the fact that the term GNU/Linux is also widely used to refer to the family. — Victor Matheus Amaral 02:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't get it confused. I'm aware the vulnerability is in the Linux kernel. Every one of those articles talks about it as a vulnerability of the operating system "Linux"/"GNU/Linux" and the distribution of the operating system is vital to the coverage of the bug, as described in those articles.

GNU/Linux is also widely used to refer to the family - where? Debian and the FSF, certainly, but as far as I'm aware not widely in reliable secondary sources. Eyesinthefire (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is sporadically mentioned in secondary sources, but it still is. And also, if it is such an "obscure" name, why is there a discussion on Wikipedia about this topic from time to time? And if a term "so unused" and should not be included, why do main articles like Saint Petersburg have older, absolutely obsolete and by far not used terms like "Petrograd" and "Leningrad" in the beginning of the first paragraph and written in bold? This example is one of many — Victor Matheus Amaral 03:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Even PERSIA is used as an alternate name in Iran. Find an article of a reliable source talking about modern Iran that uses the term "Persia" — Victor Matheus Amaral 03:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This also happens in articles about software. For example, Android has AOSP in bold in the beginning of the second paragraph, even though it is strictly a technical name and not widely used by reliable secondary sources. — Victor Matheus Amaral 03:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a good example because that is an alternate name being described in context within the second paragraph of the article, which this article currently does appropriately with GNU/Linux, which is also presented in boldface when it is introduced. - Aoidh (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While this comparison is very apples to oranges because that those examples are largely transitional name changes rather than the promotion of an alternative name, it was very easy to find sources calling modern Iran by the name of Persia such as this article going into great detail about Persia (Iran) as a concept, place, and identity, and why Western cultures use that word. - Aoidh (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not used as "Iran". I am arguing against his claim that the term should not be included just because it is not widely used. — Victor Matheus Amaral 03:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

And how much time will it take for Saint Petersburg to get rid of a 1920s name? — Victor Matheus Amaral 03:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The term GNU/Linux is already included, in a way very similar to your Android/AOSP example above and in keeping with WP:NPOV. An historical name for Saint Petersburg which was the common name for the city during one of the most important periods of Russian history has nothing to do with a minority alternative name of GNU/Linux which has never been the common name in any way, historically or presently. That is not comparable, and if you believe Petrograd is an issue, the solution is to start a discussion on Talk:Saint Petersburg, but it's not relevant to this topic in any way. - Aoidh (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

There is an important argument, most people here seem to have not considered that I will say: Casual use of the "Linux" name, does not need to dispute the use of "GNU/Linux", in fact "GNU/Linux" can be seen as a more technical term, that is more proper in such a context. Where despite the numbers, "Linux" can be seen as a mere casual way to refer to the system, thus as such it does not seek to undermine the use of "GNU/Linux". This means the larger numbers and popularity in favor of "Linux" do not actually support the argument that "GNU/Linux" should be dismissed on the basis that "GNU/Linux" is less popular, since after all the reason "GNU/Linux" appears less often is because it is a more proper, technical term, and thus reserved for such a more technical context. Being a well established alternative technical term, even if not used amongst the masses, still makes it a perfectly valid term to refer to the system by. And this is not a matter of including any pointers to some controversy. "GNU/Linux" is what Kalium, is to Potassium, it is a well established technical, more proper term, despite the casual use being something else. There is strong reason to include such a term in the lead of the article, as with Potassium and Kalium as an analog. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Attempting to redefine "Linux" as casual and "GNU/Linux" as technical in order to justify giving disproportionate weight to that term is both not reflective of reliable sources, and would be an WP:NPOV issue, a Wikipedia policy which is non-negotiable. - Aoidh (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

1. You have not cited which part of the policy what I said would violate, the document is substantial enough in size such that pointing to it broadly without referring to any specific part of it, is too vague to mean anything. Unless you can actually say with substance what is wrong with the specific argument made, then you are just pointing fingers at policies. This does not demonstrate a deeper understanding of the policy to make such surface level claims.

2. Consider this; interpretation is inseparable from competent reading, for instance language proficiency, when properly measured takes into account the ability to comprehend the information presented with, to comprehend is to understand, which is to correctly interpret the meaning. Take for as an example the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and pay attention to the part C1 level, where it says "implicit meaning"... implicit in the use of "Linux" as a term, is that it is often targeted towards the general population who are for one reason or another seen to be more comfortable or familiar with it than the more technical term. I am not in violation of any policy in proposing, an alternative interpretation. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I have prepared here miscellaneous examples I have quickly gathered up since having posted earlier, to support my own argument in that post. I don't care if the surrounding issue regarding the original post already died or maybe not, but I'll post this here still as a reply to myself for anyone interested for future use. There is no particular order or implied fitness for particular purpose for the following links I am about to provide, here is a random assortment of examples proving a well established interchangeable use of "GNU/Linux" and "Linux" out there in the world.

with also some sparse mentions of "GNU/Linux" here

And each of these one way or another literally state that either for the purposes of that text alone, or in general, "GNU/Linux" is basically the same as "Linux", either that "Linux" a shortening of "GNU/Linux" or just referring to within the scope of that article "hereafter" as one or the other stating they are equivalent. They basically either some state directly or others imply "GNU/Linux" is the more proper technical term where "Linux" is just the short version. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This discussion resulted in a now closed RFC, in which the consensus was overwhelmingly to not include GNU/Linux in the lede. Eyesinthefire (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The RfC was ill-prepared. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Softwareperson1000 or any other is welcome to reopen it, I'm just summarizing the consensus reached on this topic outside this thread. Eyesinthefire (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd advise discussing a new RfC before opening it. The original RfC was framed in an odd way, and another RfC framed in a similar way would almost certainly have the same outcome. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if I get this wrong, but is this proposal about making this article exclusively about Linux distributions that use GNU userland and to exclude non-GNU userland distributions? And if so, are we gonna have a separate "Linux (non-GNU)" article or what? Betseg (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Having a separate "GNU/Linux" article looks viable. It is a prominent term that is difficult to insert into the article because of some editors aesthetic preferences. — Victor Matheus Amaral 17:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not saying this to necessarily oppose what you said, however I will just point things out so you can make an informed decision on what idea to push for, that there already exists a ton of pages and it's (to my opinion) already too many. There are for some reason separate 3 articles for Linux; Linux, Linux distribution, and Linux kernel. And there are also 3 pages for GNU; GNU, GNU Project, and GNU variants, the separation of GNU Project versus GNU as an operating system is at least justified, but adding yet another article for GNU/Linux seems like to me to introduce way too much clutter into an already existing mess. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you. There is no reason to create other article, because this issue can be simple solved by including "sometimes called GNU/Linux" in the lead — Victor Matheus Amaral 17:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Linux is not called "GNU/Linux" sometimes. Linux distributions that use GNU userland are called GNU/Linux sometimes. So, @Victor Matheus Amaral: I repeat my previous question, are you intending to make this article exclusively about the Linux distributions that use GNU userland, and exclude other distributions by potentially making a separate article about them? Betseg (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

For sure not. It was never my intent. This article is about the family of Linux operating systems, the ones with GNU and without GNU, even the ones that do not consider themselves as Linux distributions, such as Android — Victor Matheus Amaral 16:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Summary of this discussion

I find it appropriate to include "sometimes called GNU/Linux" after the term "Linux" in the lead, and to better develop the contribution of the GNU Project in the development of Linux in the body of the article. To back my proposal, here are some arguments:

1. It is often used by reliable secondary sources: https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/1816884, https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/what-is-gnulinux, https://www.linux.com/news/what-is-gnu-linux/, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4116781/, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4408913/, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1021064, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6716407

2. It is used by Debian, a major Linux distribution: https://www.debian.org/releases/forky/amd64/ch01s02.en.html

3. It is used by many other distributions.

4. It increases interest in the article because someone might get curious about why the term is used and "go deeper".

5. If a layperson stumbles upon the term "GNU/Linux" across the internet, thinks of it as a distribution or something else rather than a synonym for "Linux," and searches for it on Wikipedia, they will probably land on the Linux article. However, they might get confused and uncertain because the term is not present at first glance in the article, think they are on the wrong page, and simply leave.

6. It is the preferred term by the GNU Project, the FSF, and adherents of the free software movement.

7. It is not against the will of the creator: "It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much continue to call it 'Linux' ... The GNU people tried calling it GNU/Linux, and that's ok. It's certainly no worse a name than 'Linux Pro' or 'Red Hat Linux' or 'Slackware Linux' ... Lignux is just a punny name — I think Linux/GNU or GNU/Linux is a bit more 'professional' myself, but I'm not going to get gray hairs about this."

8. It is a long-standing discussion in the Linux article that could end with a simple mention in the lead.

My arguments are backed by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."; "The lead is the first thing most people read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read."; "Significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages."

They are also backed by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."; "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts; (I provided IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library and PubMed Central; I also provided from PCMag and Linux.com (they are often used in Linux articles))

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; (GNU Project, the FSF, Debian, many other distributions, and the free software community, which are a significant part of the Linux community.)

Excluding "GNU/Linux" from the lead while it is used by reliable secondary sources is editorially biased, because it favors one naming convention over another without encyclopedic justification beyond aesthetics.

Some main Wikipedia articles that have less used and historical names in the lead:

Saint Petersburg have "Petrograd" and "Leningrad".

Iran have Persia.

macOS have OS X and Mac OS X.

VLC have "sometimes abbreviated as VMP".

iOS have iPhone OS.

There are many other examples...

Some disclaimer against a common argument people try to use to get off topic: The term "GNU/Linux" does not imply that the majority of a Linux distribution's software should come from the GNU Project, it just asserts the historical fact that GNU was the foundation upon which Linux built itself. But this discussion is not about how important GNU is; it is about how often the term "GNU/Linux" is used to warrant inclusion in the first paragraph, and how it increases the encyclopedic value of the article. And still, the majority of distributions still use core softwares that are part of GNU project like grub, coreutils, glibc and gcc — Victor Matheus Amaral 17:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not a summary of this discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and you know this is a summary of my arguments, because I said before that I would create one. I just forgot to make it clear in the title. You all need to stop resorting to fallacies and senseless comments to try to get off-topic. — Victor Matheus Amaral 18:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not even a summary! Eyesinthefire (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, start resorting to more fallacies, like this one you used, because you do not have more counterarguments — Victor Matheus Amaral 18:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Calling it a summary of the discussion is flatly false. It is a reiteration of your argument. As your stated yourself in the opening paragraph "To back my proposal, here are some arguments". --McSly (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep nitpicking instead of counterarguing against the arguments I provided, it just proves my claim — Victor Matheus Amaral 19:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I already said this is not a summary of the discussion, but just of my arguments, and you can see it because it is directly above. There is no reason for you to say something I ALREADY diminished — Victor Matheus Amaral 19:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Instead of continuing with this desperate use of fallacy, please just assume you all lost the resources. — Victor Matheus Amaral 19:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The proper name is Apache/Busybox/GNOME/GNU/Java/KDE/LILO/LLVM/Mozilla/Perl/Slackware/TeX/Minix/Xorg/Xfree386/Linux

The following is licensed under Creative Commons CC0. No rights reserved.

• "One so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the 'freedom to choose any license you want for software you write'." --Richard M. Stallman ( https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html )

• "There are lots of people on this bus; I don't hear a clamor of support that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't take a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine, or the seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus." --Jim Gettys ( https://lwn.net/1999/0408/a/gettys.html )

If You think the Linux family of operating systems should be called GNU/Linux, you really should insist on calling it (in alphabetical order):

 Apache/Busybox/GNOME/GNU/Java/KDE/LILO/LLVM/Mozilla/Perl/Slackware/TeX/Minix/Xorg/Xfree386/Linux

It is disrespectful to attempt to put GNU's contributions to the Linux family of operating systems (yes, Linux is a family of operating systems, not just a kernel) above the work of all the other contributors.

Please read "How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?" ( http://pedrocr.pt/text/how-much-gnu-in-gnu-linux/ )

• "Figure 1 shows the total lines of code in Ubuntu split by the major projects that produce it. By this metric GNU software is about 8%. I didn't include GNOME in the GNU category because it seems to now be effectively run outside of GNU but including that the total for GNU would be around 13%."

• "I found two things to be astounding in this chart. The first is that the kernel is actually comparable in size to all the GNU software. The second is that small projects actually dominate the total amount. It seems that at least for what Ubuntu packages, the origin of the software is highly dispersed."

On the subject of how "essential" GNU is to the Linux family of operating systems, the most popular version of Linux is simply called "Android". Care to guess what percentage of Android is GNU? Hint: Google has a strong anti-GNU policy that has led them to replace every single GNU component with non-GNU alternatives.

Far from GNU being the indispensable component that the GNU/Linux advocates insist it is, it turns out that making a Linux OS without GNU is not only possible, but has been done multiple times. GNU software is convenient -- it is usually far easier to simply use the GNU component than looking for an alternative -- but in no way is it "essential".

Non-GNU Linux Distributions do exist. Chimera Linux, for example: ( https://www.phoronix.com/news/BSD-LLVM-Linux-Alpha-Coming ) Also Alpine Linux ( https://alpinelinux.org/ ) and, unless I am mistaken, Tiny Core Linux ( http://www.tinycorelinux.net/ ).

For those still unconvinced, I highly recommend reading all three chapters of Labyrinth of Software Freedom: BSD vs GPL and social aspects of free licensing debate ( http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/License_classification/index.shtml ) by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I already argued against this 'way of thinking' in a previous comment in this topic, but I'll publish it again: "I noticied that you think the term "GNU/Linux" strictly imply that every or the majority of the components of a distribution must come from the GNU project. The name reflects a historical and foundational fact: the GNU project, developed the essential tools, including the GNU Compiler Collection, the GNU C Library, Bash, and the GNU Core Utilities, that made a complete, functional operating system possible. When Linus Torvalds released the Linux kernel in 1991, it was combined with these pre-existing GNU tools to form a complete system. Without the GNU project, there would have been no complete operating system to pair with the Linux kernel in the first place.[17]

The name GNU/Linux therefore acknowledges this historical contribution, not a strict inventory of present components. Just as one does not strip a country of its name because it has modernized its infrastructure, a distribution does not cease to be GNU/Linux simply because it has replaced certain GNU components with alternatives. The GNU project laid the foundation upon which the entire Linux ecosystem was built, and that contribution remains relevant regardless of whether a particular distribution still ships every GNU tool today. This is precisely why major distributions such as Debian explicitly recognize and use the term GNU/Linux." — Victor Matheus Amaral 02:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, this discussion is not about whether the GNU Project is or was important in the development of Linux, but whether the term "GNU/Linux" is used enough to be included in the first paragraph, which it is. — Victor Matheus Amaral 02:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It was a bad argument when you made it before and it has not gotten any better. Feel free to post an RfC if you think the Wikipedia community agrees with you.

Name three other examples where a software project gets another name tacked on to the front of it -- against the wishes of the author of the software, I might add -- just because they used a compiler written by someone else. Name one. And why GNU? Why mot MINIX? or MicroEmacs? or POSIX? It was MINUX that "laid the foundation upon which the entire Linux ecosystem was built." GNU was just a tool. You might as well call The Golden Gate Bridge the McClintic-Marshall/Golden Gate Bridge because McClintic-Marshall supplied most of the tools and material used to build the bridge.

As far as how often term "GNU/Linux" is used, it is not and never was the WP:COMMONNAME. Yes, the Free Software Foundation has had a bit of minor success trying to hijack the name "Linux". But that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people call it "Linux". See the names here: --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

macOS have OS X and MAC OS X, in bold in the first paragraph. Android have AOSP in bold in the beginning of second paragraph. VLC media player have VideoLAN Client and VMP (I never seen NOBODY using this term) in the first paragraph. Do you want more? — Victor Matheus Amaral 03:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

And the term GNU/Linux is not against the "will" of Linus Torvalds, as he himself stated: "It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much continue to call it 'Linux' ... The GNU people tried calling it GNU/Linux, and that's ok. It's certainly no worse a name than 'Linux Pro' or 'Red Hat Linux' or 'Slackware Linux' ... Lignux is just a punny name — I think Linux/GNU or GNU/Linux is a bit more 'professional' myself, but I'm not going to get gray hairs about this." — Victor Matheus Amaral 03:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, do not make use of cheap rhetoric to diminish my arguments like in "It was a bad argument when you made it before and it has not gotten any better". I will make a summary of my arguments, so you can tell exactly, giving an explanation and not simply asserting, why they are "bad". — Victor Matheus Amaral 05:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

1. This is an old tired argument about the naming controversy that has been falsified a million times. Repeating it demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of computer science and of operating systems. The reason GNU is in the name is because that's the name the man who started the project gave it. That's the simplest way to put it, but I will elaborate, projects that descend from the original GNU Project distribute a completed GNU operating system distribution, they finished what Richard Stallman started and thus their work is a part of the GNU family of operating systems. What you don't seem to realize is that as far as the "GNU/Linux" naming controversy is concerned, it is in fact "Linux" which is the part that is added in, after "GNU", not the other way around. On that topic of the naming controversy, my stance is that if you want to use a single name to call the system, then that's just "GNU". GNU is the original foundation onto which any such operating system distribution was built, and Linux is a kernel, which is a component an operating system makes use of. Because GNU was the foundation, the name is inherited, because it's the historical lineage that's key to this issue, names are inherited. The complete system distributions that ship the GNU Project onto the desktop and beyond, inherit the name from the GNU Project, because they took on the GNU Project and completed it. That's why I also argue, that GNU is not an operating system, it is a family of operating systems, Debian is an operating system, a part of the GNU family. For more reading, see my proposal for The GNU family of Operating Systems

2. Android is obviously not a GNU system, so it should be automatically exempt from this entire topic of inserting the "GNU/Linux" name to systems. Why should you still bring it up in this context in this day and age I don't know. We all know Alpine and Android aren't GNU systems, that doesn't mean the systems which are GNU, shouldn't be called that, just because other operating systems exist, which happen to share some kernel component in common.

3. Non-Linux GNU operating system distribution exist also. See the GNU variants Wikipedia article for more. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

If you can't tell the difference between "I don't care what other people call it" and actually agreeing that Linux is no longer called Linux, I can't help you.

Linus Torvalds created something great. He called it "Linux". He wrote it, so he gets to name it. Stallman is free to name what he creates (GNU Hurd). If you don't like the fact that when someone creates something they get to name it, post an RfC. See how many people agree with you.

So if you will excuse me, I am off to convince the world to call it TRIX/Mach/GNU Hurd. This will be my last response to you. Be careful about WP:BLUDGEONING. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of which, it's actually called Freax because Linus called it Freax. The Finns bullied him into calling it Linux, just as Stallman tried to! /hj Aaron Liu (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Bludgeoning

Per WP:BLUDGEONING:

Bludgeon: To beat powerfully with an object of great mass.

"In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions. This can happen on a talk page, deletion discussion, or ... realistically, in any discussion on Wikipedia. This behavior and conduct is undesirable, considered a form of disruptive editing, and is usually seen and reported as such when observed by other editors who are involved in the same discussion."

One person posting 26 comments -- many of which repeat the same arguments -- in a discussion with 68 total comments is excessive and disruptive. User:Victor Matheus Amaral, please stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It was not made in bad faith. I invited many people to join the discussion to maximize its reach and subject it to public scrutiny. Are you afraid of that? — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

If you find it disruptive, just leave the discussion, you are not forced to be here. — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, enough is enough. I have been watching this argument, and it seems they just want their own point to stand. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

A significant part of the Linux community agrees with that. I want my point to stand, would I argue against myself? — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Just stop. At this point you are now restating your argument over and over. This is starting to get to the point where it is annoying. You are still WP:BLUDGEONING. Please stop. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

No, I am not doing that. I summarized my arguments in a subsection of this topic, and nobody countered them. If you find it annoying, just leave, no one is forced to be here. We will not stop the discussion because you feel annoyed. What is your authority? — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This has now entered disruptive territories. I will not be replying to anymore of your replies, as it is just going to make me more annoyed. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

As seen from other messages, you ran out of counterarguments and are desperately trying to bring down the discussion using fallacies. — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Knock it off. Continuing down this path is going to start to enter disruptive territories. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Please stop getting off-topic and go counterargue in the subsession I created (if you can) — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm to the point we should move to AN/I. @Guy Macon should I go in and file a report on this, since I am just going to get more annoyed the further this chat goes on. They are pushing their POV constantly. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

"I'm getting annoyed and will report this" yes, I'm the one pushing my POV. — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You're just a random person who contributed nothing to the discussion and came solely to push personal interests. And stop commenting in this section. If your message was for Guy Macon, post it on his talk page. I will not respond to any more attempts to derail the discussion. — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, since some people say because I said they it implies more then one person somehow, I am talking about Victor Matheus Amaral. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 21:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

What on earth happened here? For anyone who comes later I want to make clear that I'm not with Victor Matheus Amaral. I did comment on the "GNU/Linux" naming controversy that was brought up as a topic on his thread, because I figured I had useful arguments to provide on the subject, but while I may agree with the GNU/Linux idea, when SuperJames888 said "I have been watching this argument, and it seems they just want their own point to stand." I just want to point out so that everyone is clear on it, that I'm not associated with User:Victor Matheus Amaral and don't know him. So I don't want any trouble with reports being filed with such Bludgeoning affairs as I wasn't affiliated with such things, and it's just a coincidence I agreed with the name thing. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no issues with you (Softwareperson1000). We may be on opposite sides of the naming controversy, but your arguments have been reasonable and not at all disruptive. Very productive, in fact. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Do not be afraid of them — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

What in the world does that imply? SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You said "they" — Victor Matheus Amaral 21:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Please tell me that you are joking. The singular "They" is the accepted pronoun for when you don't know what a person's pronouns are. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I see that was the source of my confusion then. I interpreted they as many people, and given there weren't all that many people arguing on the side in favor of "GNU/Linux", that's what prompted my reply a few replies above. All is OK then, I'll check out from this conversation. Thanks Softwareperson1000 (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Also to let you know, Victor only started mass editing yesterday, on basically only linux articles. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 21:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

what's the matter? — Victor Matheus Amaral 21:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Getting around 170 edits in roughly 2 days is abnormal. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 21:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I know — Victor Matheus Amaral 21:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that. He's only edited about this topic, so simply an editor with a lot of passion (whom I agree is bludgeoning). Aaron Liu (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

To summarize this: Wikipedia editors broadly dislike a lot of comments from the same person, especially if they're saying the same thing, as they might drown out others' arguments and make a discussion much harder to read—especially for anyone trying to join the discussion. Please be assured that other editors will read your arguments (the outcome of decisions is based on arguments, not the number of comments) and slow down. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Remove source model and license from the infobox

This is a suggestion, but I think it doesn't make sense to have source model and license for something that's not concrete, like the OS family. This article is not about the Linux kernel, that's a separate article. It's not about a specific distribution either. Anything on top of the Linux kernel can be proprietary in a Linux-based operating system, so specifying a license and source model here is misleading at best. ~2026-33003-62 (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Both are labeled with a "(kernel)" tag, which could be read as supporting evidence for your suggestion. I tend to agree with said suggestion. Guy Harris (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Should the "Userland" item in the infobox list C libraries and init programs?

Those are critical parts of making a full-blown OS atop the Linux kernel; should it mention, for example, GNU libc, musl, and Bionic as examples of C libraries used in Linux systems, as well as SysVinit (repository), systemd, and GNU Shepherd as examples of init programs? Guy Harris (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I think yes. Although it it poorly referenced, User space and kernel space appears to have the correct definition, Both C libraries and init systems are userland processes executed by the kernel after booting. [CORRECTION: kernelspace and userspace programs both use code from C libraries. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that.]

I can't help wishing that init made it clear whether it runs in kernelspace or userspace. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, init systems, yes. The C libraries aren't processes, they're code that most programs use, so C library code is part of the code running in most if not all processes.

If init doesn't make it clear that it runs in user mode, it needs to be fixed. Guy Harris (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

If init doesn't make it clear that it runs in user mode, it needs to be fixed. I've changed it to explicitly state that init (in the generic sense rather than in the "a program in an executable image named init) is a user-space program. Guy Harris (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)