Talk:GNU variants

Vandalism of the article GNU variants to push a personal agenda by user Aoidh

(edited, since posting this I removed the RfC)

It is evident and clear that this article covers various operating systems derived from the use of GNU Project's software, the article being called GNU variants. GNU variants such as kFreeBSD and others, are obviously operating systems which share a commonality in their use of the software developed GNU Project, that's the subject matter of the article. It is thus absolutely relevant to this article to include an explanation of the technical nature of these operating systems in question, and their purpose for being included in this article. Their shared characteristics in their use of the GNU Project's software is the entire reason for their inclusion in this article, as well as the purpose for this article to exist in the first place. Operating systems that are considered GNU variants should be called that. With using kernels such as Hurd, Linux, kFreeBSD being the differences between the systems, thus it should be explained what causes these differences as per the Unix-like design which allows for the modularity to bring about these systems.

1 2 3

User User:Aoidh has decided on the basis of a personal point of view to claim that some of the sources that were used in the article are unreliable. And has then proceeded to vandalize the article by removing large segments of text without good reason. There was no such flaw in the sources to warrant the removal of these entire paragraphs of text when a single small edit would have been enough. Segments of text which were providing crucial context for the technical nature of the operating systems and their design. User:Aoidh in the edit notes pointed to an unrelated discussion taking place on another different Talk Page on the Linux article, on a thread which I started earlier discussing a separate and an entirely unrelated matter about "Linux" as a "family" of operating systems, which has no connection to this article whatsoever. The only supposed connection I believe User:Aoidh mistakenly saw, as to why bring that up at all here now, is that a single instance of the word "family" which I recently to this article GNU variants was used. "family" is also a key word that was the concern and the topic of that other discussion with the Linux as a "family" elsewhere. For this article, describing these operating systems as a "family" in my edit, I believe was well cited and there is no problem with using it on an article. On that other topic, User:Aoidh argued in opposition of the "family" verbiage for GNU systems and I argued in support of it, We were discussing the possibility of replacing Linux as a "family" with GNU, but this has no relation to the article GNU variants and is no basis for vandalizing it, the primary focus there on that topic was Linux which is not the topic here on GNU variants.

It would appear that as a result of that other unrelated conversation taking place elsewhere that did not concern this article, user User:Aoidh has now decided to come here to this article GNU variants to push that personal view and agenda, apparently because of the disagreement we had which has seemingly upset User:Aoidh who saw my edit on this article and thus resulted in this vandalism. It is important to realize that if the user User:Aoidh merely took issue with that single instance that word "family" being used to describe the group operating systems derived from the GNU Project's software, then the user could have simply edited out that one single sentence where that one word was used, without having to resort to vandalizing the rest of the article. User:Aoidh in the edit notes further justifies the actions taken to vandalize this article by bringin up yet another unrelated issue, the GNU/Linux naming controversy is also apparently a reason to vandalize this article. Note that this article is not concerned with the "GNU/Linux" naming controversy. As far as such disputes regarding terminology and verbiage are concerned, I will point out that this article specifically focuses on that subject matter, as per Wikipedia policy NPOV in section Due and undue weight it reads "Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views", this article is devoted to those views, as this article is on the topic of the GNU variants. Hence the inclusion and usage of relevant relevant verbiage concerning that topic is justified, even if it is a minority viewpoint elsewhere.

I am open to the possibility that there are better ways to explore the topic, and I now ask for comments on how that should be done. I say entirely removing the important sections of the article is not the way to go about this, I ask, if people can find better ways to explore the topic, and/or find any good better sources that User:Aoidh does not see as unreliable, that are necessary for this article.

I am opening this RfC to avoid edit warring, otherwise I would just undo the edits User:Aoidh made if I didn't suspect that would start an edit war. I am looking to restore the article back to This version, with possible further changes to be made starting from there. I request for comment on the use of the "family" term, as well as comment on the description of "GNU as an operating system" in the context of this article as that is the subject matter at hand. How should this issue be covered on this page dedicated to the GNU variants when the topic of the GNU Project's software and it's inclusion in operating systems is such a controversial issue? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems to be a conflict between you and Aoidh. I don't think an RfC is required for this. I suggest trying WP:THIRD first. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not convinced, respectfully. Also there was already a third person involved in that other conversation User:Aoidh pointed to called User:Guy Harris who on yet another separate occasion more or less agreed with the GNU "family" idea but I am not quite sure how firm his stance is / was. My own suspicion tells me this would turn into an edit war if I didn't make an RfC. I think it's best to ask for more opinions to reach a proper consensus on this issue, for the scope of this article, as this has to do with the wider application of policy in Wikipedia as far as the Due and undue weight idea is concerned, so I'm not convinced a single third one is enough. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

But the more important reason for an RfC is that User:Aoidh is the one who brought up another unrelated "consensus" on the topic of Linux and is also the one to raise the unrelated GNU/Linux naming controversy which has no relation to this article as a justification for the acts. Secondly I don't see that there is anything between me and User:Aoidh in particular as you would put it. The other discussion is entirely disconnected from this article, so in my mind that other discussion is entirely unrelated and I don't care about it now at all now. User:Aoidh is the one who brought it up where it doesn't belong. But I think that it does now warrant an RfC for the scope of this article since the questions regarding such controversy has been now introduced here, as it is a controversial issue. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, please stop making WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence. I removed the recent additions because of several issues such as unreliable sources and failed verification, as well as WP:OR and longstanding consensus; this discussion is relevant because it is the same argument at a new article when consensus did not support the content there, and coming to this article to make it a WP:POVFORK is an issue. I did not revert these recent changes on the basis of a personal point of view that some of the sources are unreliable; this is not a reliable source per WP:SPS, for example. Conflating Linux (and the less common GNU/Linux label) with GNU itself and using that basis to conclude in the prose things about GNU itself based on sources for Linux is a violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. There is nothing about my reverting based on these issues that would make it vandalism (WP:VANDTYPES), and accusing me of trying to push a personal agenda without evidence is unnecessary, and I respectfully have no interest in engaging with comments of this nature any further. - Aoidh (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

OK so the p2pfoundation one is bad then, so remove that one citation. That wasn't the only citation for the sentence it was used for however as there was also this one https://www.getgnulinux.org/linux/, so I take it that was no good either? On the part about GNU as a family I admit there were too many citations used, however I do have a reason for that, I have added the numerous citations to the article with every intention of eventually removing many of them which are bad later, and/or letting other editors to review which sources are good and remove the bad ones. I have taken this article as a hobby project, where I contribute to it incrementally, I consider this article an active work in progress where I have added the multiple citations there as notes for me for further scrutiny later, they should be good enough to be included in the article but it's true there are too many. I realize this is not good practice would probably violate some policy, but my intention was to get back to them soon enough. And you will see evidence of me already doing this practice recently.

That issue, nor the one citation you said is bad, does not alter the fact that This citation is all good, also I would recommend This one as well as good, these ones I don't see as being bad, the other ones for the "family" issue are probably not useful so they can be removed. But don't pretend as if that one p2pfoundation link was all there was as a citation to warrant the removal of so much more other text. What about the part about the Unix-like design which is the whole reason for why the multiple kernel variants exist? I say it makes sense to explain why the different kernel variants exist on an article that covers those systems, was it not well cited? Or what about this part "GNU distributions are available for a wide variety of computer systems ranging from..." Which predates my edits to this article, why remove it? It's just a generic fact about things that are obvious from the context of the rest of the article, not literally every single line of text has to be cited as per Wikipedia policy, sometimes the rest of the article can just give the rest of the context for such a generic statement.

You did vandalize the article, because as it stands it is a mess and is incoherent, for some reason after your edit, GNU Hurd now has two different sections back-to-back which is nonsense, and there is no clear separation between the complete OS variants which was the GNU as an operating system you removed, versus the other sections for GNU distributions for use on other operating systems and Impact which were categorized as such under the context of separating GNU as an OS versus those other forms of GNU variants, showing that you did not think this trough / have an intent to make the article actually make sense, but instead what you did was showed up here to remove a bunch of stuff arbitrarily that you didn't like and left it in that sorry state without thinking of the article as a whole for how these changes fit in.

Also since you so seemingly so strongly support the case that GNU isn't an OS of any kind (never mind the family thing) why did you leave "...as well as to form complete operating system distributions out of..." then? That literally says GNU variants are still complete operating systems? If you are going to push your personal viewpoint then might as well eradicate any mention of the term "operating system" in this article if GNU isn't that? This suggests you haven't though this trough or carefully analyzed the article to understand it, and instead took a quick glance at it and didn't like the part where it said "family" and decided to just leave that part, this is why I say what you did is vandalism because that's what your actions certainly look like. As to your personal motivations for why and what brought this about, those are my speculation, vandalism is my argument.

I will repeat, that the discussion about the "Linux" family is irrelevant. You will note, again for the millionth time, that in that other discussion I said I am OK with the "Unix-like" as being the family as a compromise, which literally means that conversation wasn't about the GNU Project specifically, otherwise if it was I would have insisted it has to be GNU and nothing but GNU, the fact that I offered other solutions as a compromise shows GNU was not the primary focus of that discussion, it was my primary recommendation for the replacement of "Linux" but it wasn't the topic of that conversation. Also, an important note is that the scope of that discussion was different, I made the case as we spoke that all the articles on Wikipedia should reflect that. That is fundamentally a different context than, an article where the subject matter specifically focuses on the GNU system variants A.K.A. GNU as an operating system, as being described as a "family". That's different, the context and scope change the whole discussion.

But OK, let's drop the "family", I'll agree to that as a compromise and I'll restore the article to what it was before your edits then? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

P.S. There is currently no link to the article GNU because you removed it and didn't clean up / fix the mess you caused, which means you have contributed to an overall worsening of the connectivity between articles in Wikipedia and disconnected relevant pages from this article. A total mess is what you left behind. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going to respond to comments like this. Get a consensus for your changes before trying to reinsert the material further. - Aoidh (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack however, it is a valid case to point out vandalism done to the article. I have provided a motive, an established personal viewpoint, the problems caused to the article, as well as clearly explained the series of events. You can not evade personal responsibility and accountability by naming any attempt to call out such behavior a "personal attack" to attempt to dismiss it on such grounds. You have vandalized the article.

Section title "GNU as an operating system" which points to GNU variants as the 'Main article' in article GNU is my consensus. And I will restore the article to what it was before you vandalized if I so see fit. You have no defense, you have pointed to policies and called things names.

Let me tell you something about secondary sources, secondary sources are needed when the primary sources are patents which are complex legal documents that are not written in plain language such that a lay person would understand it, thus citing an expert's review of that patent as a secondary source is necessary for proper citation. But we are not dealing with patents here (or equivalents).

Since you like pointing to Wikipedia policy so much, let me show you how it's done: In  Wikipedia policy No original research Section Primary, secondary and tertiary sources link here it reads "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages."

Your claims that secondary sources are a hard requirement are false and your case is thus dismissed on these grounds.

Let me tell you something about common sense, if you open your eyes you will see the clear and obvious facts, 1. you will see there are lots of operating systems which make use of software derived from the GNU Project 2. The operating systems are historically derived from the GNU Project specifically meaning that Richard Stallman started the project and made some software, and then third parties took that software and threw in some third party software to form a complete operating system 3. This article obviously covers said operating systems 3. They are called GNU variants 4. they are also called GNU distros

Then with those obvious facts in mind, here is my question for you: What on earth do you think an operating system that is considered GNU variant is, if not an operating system that is considered a GNU variant? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss the issues, but I'm not going to engage with WP:ASPERSIONS further. - Aoidh (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's say we did drop the "vandalism" then, I expect you to then answer the questions I have asked you thus far if you are happy to discuss the issue. Mainly, what do you think a "GNU variant" in the context of a complete operating system distribution is, if not a variant of the GNU operating system. I am fairly certain that Richard Stallman was the one who coined the usage of "variant" in the context of GNU system distribution, specifically describing Linux using operating systems which use the GNU software as being each a modified variant of GNU with Linux added essentially. And I believe it is this terminology that is used on this Wikipedia article is derived from that use of GNU as a "variant". Which means, already implicit in the use of "GNU variant" is the acknowledgement that GNU manifests as an operating system in the form of this and that system distribution, because that's what it means, GNU variant.

So how can you continue your support (in not actively opposing it) of "GNU variant" but then you refuse to acknowledge "GNU as an operating system"? That's a bit silly now isn't it? Because the two are equivalent and GNU variant stands for GNU as an operating system in that original context Richard Stallman used it in.

Then the second question is, how come you removed so much text from the article if it wasn't arbitrary vandalism? You have pointed to a single citation which wasn't to your liking, but there was a lot of other text you removed. Also none of it had anything to do with any GNU/Linux naming controversy which you for some reason brought up as if it has anything to do with this.

Then how do you explain why you ruined the article, by making such a mess of it as I explained earlier?

What's with you not having edited the section title on the GNU page in the last 6 years?

You have no valid case against the use of "family" anyway, as any consensus on the GNU/Linux naming controversy you think you are citing, has nothing to do with this, and I have not seen a single link or a quotation to any specific statement disputing "family" in such a context. Not once from you, so you are just making stuff up.

I would appreciate addressing the argument I made about the use of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources that has to do with editorial judgment and such things.

And yes, Wikipedia does have a specific meaning for Vandalism, and it opens with "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. There are, of course, more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and temporary accounts may also constitute vandalism."

Later in Types of vandalism it reads Vandalism on Wikipedia usually falls into one or more of these categories: which essentially means included but not limited to

Does it not qualify what was done, as a malicious removal of content and without regard to the Neutral Point Of View to push a personal viewpoint, and I have presented the motive, that established personal viewpoint, the damage done to the article, and explained specifically what happened and how things played out? And this here is a question not an accusation.

Why does accusing of vandalism stop the ability to answer the questions asked? How does this differ from if I did stop the accusation, as in, what changes, the questions are the same and the issue remains, would you then answer the questions you have refused to answer thus far if I no longer accuse you of vandalism? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

correction "opens with" is incorrect, it is the second paragraph Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

No one is required to satisfy you with their answers, especially when the excessively long comments are repeating the same aspersions over and over. - Aoidh (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to stop accusing Aoidh of vandalism with no basis. Your dispute of the content of their edits has nothing to do with vandalism, which has a particular meaning on Wikipedia. Eyesinthefire (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

But there is basis. The case I have made is valid. I am open to the possibility I am wrong, and I am willing to dismiss the case if so determined, I am open to hearing counter arguments. On the particular meaning of vandalism, yes, and the most important part of it is this one "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

P.P.S Are you also going to undo the edit made here in 4 August 2020 to the GNU article, which introduces the "GNU as an operating system" to that article "Per talkpage." it says in edit notes? A line of text used as the heading for that section established almost 6 years ago now to say so, which equates the GNU variants with GNU as an operating system. You will see, that section in that article points to this article GNU variants as the 'Main article', hence GNU variants distributed as complete operating systems are that, GNU as an operating system. It looks like to me, that you User:Aoidh are the one countering and evading established use of terminology to refer to the systems, to push your own personal view. I can see in the Talk page archives, you have been there as part of the discussions, you have a long established personal anti-GNU agenda that is evident and clear. My question for you now is, why haven't you in the last 6 years undone that edit made there to the GNU article, and it was only now when I talked to you and when I made these changes to the article GNU variants, that you came here to this article GNU variants to undo parts that refer to the GNU variants as an "operating system" specifically, but have not cared about that part on that GNU article? A line, GNU as an operating system, that you have very clearly long argued against, personal viewpoint. So, did you think you could get away pushing your own personal narrative on another separate article now, so as to not counter that established line of terminology used there by raising that old issue there again? That's speculation on my part if this was your motivation, but it certainly does not add support to your case that this was not vandalism and your personal view and mission, what is clearly a well established personal view on your part. You say I have no evidence you are pushing a personal agenda, is this not it? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Softwareperson1000: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 6,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, per WP:RFCCAT, The "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply them to a specific case. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Update, I consider this topic now no longer relevant as a live concern. I have posted a notification on User talk stating that I consider this topic closed. I will not be adding further comments on this thread, and I am in favor of archiving it. Also this includes the topic Talk:GNU variants#c-Softwareperson1000-20260531113400-Answers I consider closed, and ready to archive. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Also there was already a third person involved in that other conversation User:Aoidh pointed to called User:Guy Harris Said third person is called that because Mr. and Mrs. Harris decided to name their son "Guy" and because said son is one of those weirdos who just uses his legal name when posting.

who on yet another separate occasion more or less agreed with the GNU "family" idea I'm not sure to which comment you're referring - perhaps the comment that begins with "For Linux as a family: the references seem good. " on Talk:Linux (I'd have linked directly, but Wikipedia can't seem to handle the permalink URL that it generated if I put it in the comment) - but I'd say, based on what the GNU folks say, that they, at least, speak of such a family, with "the GNU system" being what most people might call "GNU/Hurd" and GNU/Linux being a "variant" of the GNU system. I'm not sure how they define the non-kernel part of the GNU system, or how much of it must be present in a system for it to be classified as a GNU variant. The system on which I'm typing this has bash as a shell (although it switched from bash to zsh as the default, and /bin/sh is a wrapper that runs a shell that the user can specify) and GNU make as its make, and that may still use other GNU userland tools even though the vendor has made an effort to replace GPLed tools with non-GPLed tools over time, but I suspect the GNU folks would be offended if you called it a GNU variant. :-)

but I am not quite sure how firm his stance is / was The tl;dr version of my stance is "it's complicated", because it is complicated. (Some might wish it to be uncomplicated, but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.)

But thanks for pointing out that this page is another page that weighs in on this issue. Guy Harris (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistook you for someone else. My memory deceived me, I should have verified this before I mentioned you agreed, my mistake. It was some anonymous account on the same thread I talked to you on on the initial GNU family proposal thread. This is what I falsely recalled Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

RFC:This isn't a properly formulated RFC and requesting comments at this stage is premature. I would suggest actually working through this first. Wikipedia:BEFORERFC Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, after having heard such criticism also earlier that RfC isn't the way to go now, I have decided to drop it. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, I want to point just in case there was some misunderstanding, that I did not intent to insult your name User:Guy Harris. When I said you were "called" that, I literally just meant that in the most plain generic way possible possible, where that's just literally what the user account is called. So there was no intended implication about the quality or characteristics of the name, just so we are clear I have no issue with your name. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

No insult inferred, it was just odd phrasing. Relatively few people seem to just use their legal name for their Wikipedia accounts, so I just wanted to clarify that it's not a handle, it's me. Guy Harris (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It's also probably worth pointing out to avoid further confusion with there was already a third person involved that User:Guy Harris and User:Guy Macon are different people. - Aoidh (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

And I also use my legal name. Feel free to call me "that Slackware Guy". I am guessing that there is only one of those... (smile). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

While I am still in love with Slackware, it is just too darned recent! I have stared rocking FreeBSD. I made the switch when I found out that they had removed the the last GPL software. https://reviews.freebsd.org/D55424 --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Or CP/M. No GNU in CP/M. It is also the last OS that was simple enough for anyone to go through every line of code and understand exactly how it works. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

References

RfC: Resolve Edit War between me and User:Aoidh

Resolve what to with the article after the edit war started when User:Aoidh recently entered the scene. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GNU_variants#c-Softwareperson1000-20260513135900-Vandalism_of_the_article_GNU_variants_to_push_a_personal_agenda_by_user_Aoidh for context

Question A

1. do you agree with my support for restoring the article to look like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU_variants&oldid=1354867000 as the base version for future improvement or the version preferred by User:Aoidh 2. Do you agree with using the version preferred by User:Aoidh instead https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU_variants&oldid=1354487284 3. something else? explain

Question B

I introduced in the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU_variants&oldid=1352197669 a new system of categorizing the different entries on this article GNU variants into 4 distinct categories the categories: GNU as an operating system GNU distributions for use on other operating systems GNU software used in other operating systems Impact

The system of categories I introduced was tampered with by User:Aoidh and sustained efforts from User:Aoidh as contributing to the edit war prevented me from restoring the "GNU as an operating system" section title that was removed. In edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU_variants&oldid=1354267249 I offered as a compromise to retitle "GNU as an operating system" as "Complete system distributions" to avoid terminology calling GNU an operating system which apparently was the argument User:Aoidh made, which is unclear as User:Aoidh to this date has not made a comprehensive explanation

1. entirely undo the separation into 4 categories I originally introduced 2. restore the 4 categories to either how I originally put them. Alternatively retitling "GNU as an operating system" as "Complete system distributions" which I accept 3. use the version Preferred by User:Aoidh, the categorization using 3 of the 4 categories I introduced but with "GNU as an operating system" or alternatively "Complete system distributions" removed, which breaks the context for why I introduced the 4 categories. 4. You have something else as a better suggestion? explain

Question C

Do you agree with me when I ask to include an explanation of Unix-like systems design as the necessary context for explaining to the reader what differentiates the GNU variants from each other, that being the kernel, such as to explain what the kernel is in the first place and importantly how that relates to Unix-like operating systems which are a shared commonality of the GNU variants on the article? Given this article covers Unix-like operating systems with the predominant differentiating feature between the various GNU variants being the "swapping out" of one kernel for another, explaining that relation between the kernel and the rest of the Unix-like operating system as a key detail is crushial to provide the reader of the article context for what is going on. Without this explanation of Unix-like design, the GNU variants on their own as mere entries on this article, are too ambiguous and fail at establishing what makes a system a GNU variant, and how they differ. Exploring changing one kernel for another, is enough of a technical matter to warrant such an article to explain to a reader who might stumble upon this article and first learns about kernels here what they are and how they relate to the operating system.

Question D

User:Aoidh removed several, arbitrary segments of text which have no explanation given for the reason for removal. In the earlier edit notes before the edit war User:Aoidh points to an unrelated discussion having to do with the use of the term "family" to refer to operating systems, as well as the GNU/Linux naming controvercy, as the main reason to intervene in the article, the question, what to do with each other segment of text that was removed but does not mention the words "family" or "GNU/Linux" with no further explanation given for the reason for removal of such segments of text?

Question E

Do you agree with me when I say the the sourcing is lower in quality in the version preferred by User:Aoidh and is a regression as compared to the improved sourcing in my version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU_variants&oldid=1354867000, where for example User:Aoidh does not make use of archive.org links which I do use, but more importantly one of the sources User:Aoidh prefers which is used in the first sentence of the lead paragraph literally does not feature the word "GNU" anywhere in the source? This one https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/6-lightweight-linux-distributions-give-pc-lease-life/ where who knows if it maybe once did, years and years ago (no archive.org links used by User:Aoidh stated previously), it seems User:Aoidh did not actually bother to read the sources that were used, displaying a total lack of competence in selecting sources by User:Aoidh. Several of those other sources are also trash such as this one http://en.linuxreviews.org/The_GNU_Operating_System and also this one https://www.outreachy.org/2018-may-august/communities/gnu-guix/ which hardly contribute anything of any meaningful substance to the article, overall absolutely terrible sources used by User:Aoidh compared to my preferred version.

Question F

I hold that this is vandalism done on the part of User:Aoidh as my personal opinion, where User:Aoidh essentially showed up and ruined the article, making a terrible mess out of it, do you agree or disagree?

Answers

Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

For the benefit of others, I'll point out that I'm aware of this RfC but will not comment beyond this. This isn't the first RfC created to cast aspersions and focus on conduct as much as content, and I am not the only one to revert the editor or to disagree with them on this talk page about the changes made. I'm happy to explain the issues with the edits in as much detail as needed if and when the focus is on the content rather than repeated aspersions about myself and my apparent "total lack of competence". - Aoidh (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

"I am not the only one to revert the editor"

yeah, the other one undid my RfC Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• BAD RFC. Bad enough that I removed the RFC tag. RFCs are supposed to be a brief, neutral statement, not a long argument for one side of the issue sprinkled with personal attacks on another editor. - MrOllie (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  You requested a consensus in your edit notes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU_variants&oldid=1354867685 if you don't like it when I start it, then why don't you start one? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I am only here for the RFC. I do not see this topic, or the page in general, as being in any form that I can comment on helpfully. This standard of slanging match contributes nothing to WP, or to the usability of the RFC tool. Either drop the topic or appeal to the disciplinary authorities. JonRichfield (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

correction, while the concept of separating the article into the distinct categories was indeed introduced in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU_variants&oldid=1352197669 the number of those categories was in fact not yet 4 but 3 initially, it was only until edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU_variants&oldid=1352974180 where the 4th category was introduced "Impact". Which does mean that by the time Aoidh entered the scene it was the 4 categories and it still would be in the version I would prefer in the edit wars. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Update, I consider this topic closed, see User talk:Aoidh#c-Softwareperson1000-20260805214500-Dropping case on the vandalism topic and Talk:GNU variants#c-Softwareperson1000-20260806170800-Softwareperson1000-20260513135900 for further details. Ready to archive on my part. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

OpenSolaris and Illumos kernel

This article says:

Nexenta OS is the first distribution that combines the GNU userland (with the exception of libc; OpenSolaris' libc is used) and Debian's packaging and organisation with the OpenSolaris kernel. Nexenta OS is available for IA-32 and x86-64 based systems. Nexenta Systems initiated the project and sponsors its continued development.

However the Nexenta OS article says: "In late 2011, the Nexenta OS brand was terminated and replaced with Illumian" so there is a need for some clarification. Has the project been revived? Has a different project adopted the name? --Northernhenge (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That source used for Nexenta OS in this article is from 2007. Nexenta OS's *continued development* may have been true then 2 decades ago, now that source has simply gotten outdated and so the text needs to be updated to say Nexenta OS was discontinued. Many parts of this article were like 2 decades years old before I came here, but I have only updated a few of the old things and Nexenta OS being still actively developed I didn't notice. To my knowledge Nexenta was terminated in 2012, but that could be off. What I know is that Nexenta OS was terminated and Illumian as a project is a successor to it. There are no active projects which have adopted the Nexenta OS name. Illumian was based on the then new illumos project, where Nexenta OS was based on OpenSolaris proper. illumos of course showed up later because of Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems to continue the OpenSolaris after Oracle terminated it.

There was an earlier confusion in that segment of text on the Nexenta OS I fixed, that seemed to confuse Nexenta OS for being an illumos based system as an unrelated note, but the point in bringing that up now is that this segment should probably be entirely rewritten from scratch, or some deeper investigation into the history of the OpenSolaris and later illumos distros be had. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Rewrote OpenSolaris and illumos section.

There is still a question left as to whether it should be explained in that section how illumos and OpenSolaris relate to each other, because currently they aren't and it isn't necessarily clear to the readers unless they actually click the hyperlinks to go read more on illumos. So perhaps this should be explained with a brief part on Sun Microsystems releasing OpenSolaris but then upon Oracle's acquisition they cancelled OpenSolaris resulting in the community forking it and rebranding it as illumos to continue it under that name.

As a side note I've already elsewhere on this Talk page suggested that Sun Microsystems and OpenSolaris should have more explanation given to them on this article. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Merging articles GNU and GNU variants

I created a userpage article User:Softwareperson1000/GNU as an operating system to show for what I have in mind. In this userpage article I merge the useful and relevant contents of both articles into one. There is still some polish required. The only new statement written which did not exist in either of the two input articles is the opening statement of the lead paragraph, as one has to re-contextualize the subject material to fit the new merged form, everything else was taken directly from the two input articles and rearranged slightly. I appreciate feedback, and I want suggestions for which one should be the one removed. I crossposted this on the GNU Talk page, please send replies to there to keep the discussion in one Talk Page. Continue discussion at Talk:GNU#c-Softwareperson1000-20260915142700-Merging articles GNU and GNU variants Softwareperson1000 (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Haiku has how much GNU software to be relevant?

Does anyone who is intimately familiar with Haiku know how much GNU software used in there, to determine how relevant it is to be included in this article, perhaps in the bottom section for GNU software in other operating systems? I know for sure it has some GNU software but I don't really know how much. Also, since this article has always had the GNU software distributions that are not actual operating system installer images be included such as Cygwin, there is also the question how much GNU software Haiku has in its repos, to warrant a mention here. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)