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)

I dispute the existence of "Linux" as a family of operating systems

A. Linux is a kernel, which is a component of an operating system. Many operating systems use Linux, most of which are GNU systems (For further context see my proposal for GNU as a family of operating systems), however the Linux kernel is not the unifying characteristic that should be used to determine what OS family the software distribution falls into. Chronologically the GNU project came first and operating systems that derive from it naturally ought to be categorized in terms of their historical lineage as such, derivatives of the GNU Project, therefore the GNU family of operating systems. Other operating systems which use Linux but don't belong to the GNU family of operating systems, are simply Unix-like operating systems, not meaningfully a part of any particular OS family that I know of. Linux is a kernel Unix-like operating systems make use of.

B. I took a look at the archived page of the first citation after the pronunciation citation, 17. Linux#cite note-23 archived at archive.org and this citation on the Wikipedia appears to be a misquotation, on the Wikipedia page on the citation it says "The shared commonality of the kernel is what defines a system's membership in the Linux family; the differing OSS applications that can interact with the common kernel are what differentiate Linux distributions." But this is not what the archived source says! According to the that archive source on what is presumably page 33 it says "kernel The central, core program of the operating system. The shared commonality of the kernel is what defines Linux; the differing OSS applications that can interact with the common kernel are what differentiate Linux distributions" provided I didn't misspell anything. This is absolute nonsense, a blatant lie and a misquotation! First there is absolutely nothing about any "family" of operating systems in the source cited which makes this mis-citation, and second, this segment is used to define what "Linux distributions" are not a "Linux family". I argue there is a difference in the use of "Linux distribution" as a colloquial or casual term refer to operating systems making use of Linux, versus a technical categorization of operating system families.

C. Furthermore the archived source says that Linux is supposedly an operating system originated by Linus Torvalds, which is blatantly false, as the operating systems which use GNU software obviously share an older common origin dating back further into the founding of the GNU Project by Richard Stallman than any Linux kernel added in later. Essentially that sourced article is a misrepresentation, and a poor record of (or even intentional attempt at rewriting) history, thus I say an unreliable source. Linus Torvalds did not create an operating system, his work is not even what brought about any operating systems, his contribution was a kernel, a component that would be used to form complete system distributions out of Richard Stallman's GNU operating system.

D. To be clear, my case is that GNU is a family of operating systems. Since Richard Stallman did not complete his operating system where third party entities formed their own complete system distribution out of Richard Stallman's GNU Project, those independent distributions of software are thus distributions of the GNU family of operating systems because they historically derive from the software by the GNU Project + with the Linux added. Note that my argument here isn't on the GNU/Linux naming controversy, this is about the categorization of the GNU family of operating systems, and that there is no Linux family. My post here does not dispute the colloquial use of "Linux distribution" as a casual way to refer to any operating systems, I am disputing the existence of a supposed 'Linux family of operating systems'. I argue the historical lineage is what should be used to classify them under any families and umbrella terms. The historical lineage of the operating systems claimed to be a part of the Linux family of operating systems do not have their historical roots in the Linux kernel, therefore Linux has no claim for a family of operating systems, it is a component used in many different Unix-like operating systems. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

So the GNU family includes both Linux-kernel-based systems with userlands based on GNU software (and including other non-GNU software), Hurd-based systems based on GNU software (possibly including other non-GNU software), and possibly other systems.

The subset of the GNU family consisting of systems using the Linux kernel have features based on Linux kernel mechanisms that systems based on kernels lacking those features do not have; the same applies for the subset of systems using the Hurd, mutatis mutandis.

There are also system using the Linux kernel and a non-GNU-based userland, such as the one on the majority of smartphones out there. Those systems may have many of the same Linux kernel features that the ones with GNU-based userlands do, but will not have GNU-userland features not present in their userlands.

The Linux-kernel-based subset of the GNU family is a significant subset; you probably won't have, for example, cgroups in non-Linux-kernel-based members of that family. Guy Harris (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

That's essentially it. Let me further explain why and elaborate:

1. My line is that the historical lineage is what is mainly used to determine what OS family the system belongs in, minor technical variations aren't enough to sway that, so long as the overall design is similar. Differences do become relevant when the overall design differs too much (I'll elaborate on this later in the Android section of this post). You will notice for example if you look at the various *BSD systems that they have differing features from each other, yet they belong in the BSD family. OpenBSD is different from FreeBSD which is different from NetBSD etc.

2. The larger Unix-like family of operating systems (which GNU also belongs in), includes many operating systems which use the Linux kernel, they are all Unix-like because they follow a Unix-like design philosophy and behave as Unix. Most of the system distributions which make use of Linux just happen to be a part of the GNU family, but they don't have to be and there is no inherent connection. Let's look at one Alpine Linux as an example operating system which doesn't use GNU software but does use Linux, so what to make of that one might ask, well it's an Unix-like system and that's it. Unless there is a better categorization for Alpine I don't know of, and I argue Linux isn't one, then there is no more to it than that, it's just a Unix-like system among many. Linus Torvalds developed a kernel used on many Unix-like systems.

3. I do have doubts that Android qualifies as an Unix-like operating system though, to me it seems like Android shouldn't be called Unix-like, for more reading I also posted here. Android would thus be it's own independent operating system altogether, so it isn't Unix-like. This would mean Linux is also used on non-Unix-like operating systems as well, even if Android does contain Unix somewhere inside though, but that's not too important here as this is a different discussion whether Android is Unix-like. I point out here that Android at least does not support the case for "Linux as an operating system family" because Android is too different from the more Unix-like systems which I argue are the GNU family of operating systems, to be put in the same family.

In fact the technical composition and features do become relevant once they are great enough like the overall Unix-like design itself. Minor technical differences, are not important enough to warrant not putting the systems as a part of the same operating system family, in that even binary compatibility (ABI compatibility) for example is not expected from systems that are in the same OS family anyway. There is no established precedent that would suggest ABI compatibility is required for systems to qualify as a part the same family. Many Unix-like systems categorized to be in the same family are often binary incompatible and have many small differences in terms of features too, but here is the important fact, they all retain the same overall Unix-like design and fundamentally they all follow the Unix philosophy and also roughly work the same way. Which means the internal variations within the family are just the natural variations of the Unix design put in practice. It's only when a system strays off from the Unix design like how I see Android has done, that I would say such a system is no longer Unix-like and therefore it should not be included in another different OS family that is for Unix-like systems which is what the hypothetical "Linux family" would have to generally be.

If Android is determined not to be Unix but did hypothetically still somehow get included in the supposed Linux family, the Linux family would be so diverse and indeterminate as to be an incoherent mess, which isn't even entirely Unix-like anymore. I don't think sharing one OS component is enough to warrant the inclusion of a totally different OS design as a part of the same OS family. Basically put short, the Linux family would be too big (in terms of scope of different OS designs) if it included Android as a non-Unix system, which I say Android probably is that. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

This article is not the place to put forward novel arguments (WP:OR) that contradict what sources state (WP:NPOV) with regard to Android and any GNU family of operating systems. - Aoidh (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

A. "novel arguments" You are just calling it a name, I will point out that categorizing and classifying operating systems based on historical lineage is standard practice, and is not my original research. Me pointing out an error in many articles failing to follow such an established convention on Wikipedia, is not original research. Also an "Unix-like" operating system is a well established term and a concept in the world of computing, and is most definitely not my original research.

B. For me to point out that I am not convinced Android as being categorized under that "Unix-like" concept, is in fact supported by the lack of sources that show Android is Unix-like, rather than my "original research" suggesting it isn't Unix counter to some well established line. In that, who ever said Android is Unix-like? Even on the Wikipedia page on Android the term "Unix-like" appears twice (not counting the links near the bottom of the page), once as the 'OS family', and second time is literally an important figure disputing Android being Unix-like (according to the Wikipedia article itself). Actually, I would appreciate for you to show me the sources you speak of that show Android is in fact an Unix-like operating system. But I don't think I need to prove Android is not an Unix-like system, when given the context, the burden of proof to show it is Unix should be on those who wish to prove that. I can't actually on a quick glance see on the Wikipedia page on Android itself a good source saying it is Unix-like, so I ask you, what sources?

C. Also it is important to retain focus whilst discussing this, my argument is still on the Linux as an operating system family, the Android issue is only adjacent to my actual argument about the Linux as an OS family.

D. Whether GNU as an operating system family is "original research" is unclear to me, however, the way it seems to me is that Wikipedia made-up the Linux family of operating systems already as is, so to that end why accept Linux as a family but not the GNU? Again need I remind you, of what I said earlier, the instance of Linux as a "family" being cited on this article was literally a misquotation, the word "family" did not once appear in that archived source the citation pointed to, if that's the case in support of "Linux" as a family then how is that not original research? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no issue with removing the "family" verbiage, which was added when the quote was altered in 2017. However, suggesting the addition of GNU family of operating systems would not comply with WP:NPOV given the lack of sourcing supporting that. As for the Android issue, this isn't the talk page to discuss issues with that article; I would suggest raising that issue at Talk:Android (operating system). - Aoidh (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

1. Fair enough on the Android thing to be raised as an issue on that other Talk page, however I did initially bring it up here because it is still relevant to my main argument on the "Linux family", because if Android is indeed included inside such a Linux family that causes trouble for that OS family concept itself, because that would mean this supposed OS family contains both Unix-like an non-Unix-like operating systems at the same time, which is nonsense.

2. Given you gave an OK to removing "family", I need to ask you, just how far does this go? In that many Wikipedia articles on the various operating system distributions, which make use of Linux, say that they are a part of the supposed Linux family. An example: Arch Linux on the article reads "OS family Linux (Unix-like)", there are no citations to back up the "family", and that word only appears that one time right there. I would either replace that with "GNU (Unix-like)" or simply "Unix-like". If GNU is found not to be a good option (continues in 4. of my post) then I am fine with "Unix-like" as the sole family.

3. So long as the 'OS family' should exist on these Wikipedia articles, for each operating system, there is a taxonomic need for some sort of such classification and therefore a name to call it. Now that I have presented my case for why "Linux" is wrong for such a use, something has to replace it. My main proposal for that replacement is the GNU family of operating systems because it is clear and evident that out there in the world there exists operating systems based on the use of GNU software and are historically derived from it as I see it.

4. The issue of GNU family as original research; I am open to that possibility that my proposal for the GNU family is in fact original research as per Wikipedia's definition, but I'd still like to argue in support of it. My understanding is that Wikipedia's rules are not intended to cause the editor to ignore basic common sense and ignore basic facts and reality and write false nonsensical statements and incorrect information based purely on a lack of good sources. The question is of which one takes priority, writing nonsensical statements into article so that one can adhere to the spirit of a reference site (as understood by the editor), versus writing an accurate record of human knowledge despite the lack of good sources, there is an inherent conflict in Wikipedia's mission in that sense. When there are no good sources at all for an article to exist in the first place, then that article should not exist as per the policy, however the presence of the articles on these OS systems is already justified, the only question here we have now is just the classification "OS family", specifically (which may already be a concept Wikipedia made up anyway (as used on Wikipedia in this form)). If it is determined that GNU is not a good option to replace "Linux", then I am willing to compromise and reach an agreement in saying it should then be just "Unix-like". Using just "Unix-like" then serves as a fallback for my argument here in opposition to the "Linux family", we can therefore dismiss the GNU issue here for now (I will still argue in favor of it elsewhere on a separate Talk page). So do we have an agreement then that each such Wikipedia page should reflect "Unix-like" as the sole 'OS family'? I am happy with that compromise and I'll drop the "GNU family" as an issue here on this Talk page for now, until I can find good sources for it in the future perhaps. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

GNU would not be an appropriate family for Linux distributions for several reasons. First, it is an unsourced label. Second, though all Linux distributions are based on the Linux kernel in some way, not all Linux distributions or Linux-kernel based operating systems use GNU software. This wouldn't be an improvement and would create issues where something like Alpine Linux wouldn't be considered the same family as Arch Linux, and Gentoo Linux may or may not be part of a GNU family depending on how you configure it. I cannot find any third-party reliable sources that state that GNU is a family of operating systems, and while the removed source did not contain references to Linux being a family of operating systems, I pulled out my old copy of the CompTIA Linux+ Study Guide (ISBN: 978-0-470-50384-3) and Page 2 states that Linux isn’t a single OS, but rather a family of OSs... and I've also found references to such online (e.g., ). Given that there are, in fact, sources supporting the family verbiage, I'd be interested in hearing User:Guy Harris's opinion on whether that should be restored. - Aoidh (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

A. I can find a few odds and ends of some miscellaneous instances of "GNU/Linux" being used as a "family". Also it doesn't have to be just "GNU" specifically, any similar variation (including GNU/Linux) essentially serves the same role for the context here to replace "Linux".

https://www.ubishops.ca/wp-content/uploads/bucstr-2014-001.pdf

https://www.iitj.ac.in/PageImages/Gallery/03-2025/IITJ_AR_2022_2023_English.pdf

https://blog.dataumbrella.org/juan-luis-opensource-journey

https://plusformacion.us/what-is-the-full-form-of-gnu/

https://digerty.com/guides/free-libre-and-open-source-what-does-that-really-mean-no-really-really/

Mageia as a notable example of an OS distribution calls itself an "operating system of the GNU/Linux family"

https://sourceforge.net/software/product/Mageia/

https://slashdot.org/software/p/Mageia/

B. Even if GNU wasn't the way to go, I still don't see why simply "Unix-like" isn't good? It's already "Linux (Unix-like)" on the many Wikipedia articles, simply dropping "Linux" would just leave "Unix-like" as the 'OS family', that's fine by me.

C. Regarding Gentoo, Gentoo is a project, that distributes many systems, you will find if you look into it, that not all Gentoo variants with it's Portage package even use Linux. So in fact, you are wrong in asserting that Gentoo must be in the same supposed "Linux" category as some of those others, Gentoo also distributes for other kernel bases. Also, let me bring you some news you might not yet be aware of: Gentoo has officially announced a GNU Hurd variant https://www.gentoo.org/news/2026/04/01/gentoo-hurd.html so Gentoo is not Linux. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

A few more:

https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2020/11/kubuntu-2004-lts-review-familiar-operating-system.html and https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2021/04/download-fedora-34-full-editions.html written by same person

https://hackaday.com/2019/11/05/will-the-real-unix-please-stand-up/

https://www.physics.ntua.gr/konstant/ComputationalPhysics/Book/ComputationalPhysicsKNA.html

As to whether you think these are any good as sources I don't know, but there certainly are some third party uses of "GNU/Linux" as a "family" Softwareperson1000 (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

New question: Does anyone actually have a source for explaining what is a "family" of operating systems is? Just because there is a source that says something, does not mean that statement belongs in Wikipedia. Some sources call "Linux" a family, others call "GNU/Linux" a family, but has anyone actually explained what is a "family" of operating systems in the first place? If this is not a well established concept, a strictly defined term with sources explaining its use, then perhaps using this term should not be considered acceptable in this manner. Let's put it this way, how come there is no hyperlink for that word "family" as it appears on an article, that points to another article here on Wikipedia which explains what that word means and explores the concept of families of operating systems? That's because that word is used inconsistently to mean whatever the editor who wrote it means by it at any given instance, the actual concept of a "family" of operating systems has no reliable source that has been presented to me, and thus its use in general is original research as it is used on Wikipedia. Unless you can provide a hyperlink in the Wikipedia article where it says "family" that points to another Wikipedia article dedicated to this topic, then this term should not be used in the article. I proposed a method for determining what OS belongs in what family based on its historical lineage, however since this would almost certainly be original research, unless there is another model that someone else can suggest that has sourcing, then the use of this word should be terminated entirely. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

You need to drop this. There is no consensus for your repeatedly goalpost-changing suggestions for removing content on Wikipedia describing Linux distributions as operating systems or families of operating systems. In solidarity, Eyesinthefire (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I will not tolerate misrepresentations of my views, there is no shifting goalpost, from the very beginning my case has been that "Linux" is inappropriate as the family, I have offered various alternatives to replace it, or to remove the use of the term "family" entirely, and discussed the historical reasons as basis for my views. There has been no shifting goalpost, as all of the individual topics such as "Unix-like", the relationship to Android, the GNU Project, are each either offered as replacements to "Linux" or used to describe its relationship to those systems as important comparisons. It is important for everyone here to understand that Linux as the "family" specifically, I find inappropriate. I believe I have not contradicted myself nor shifted the goalpost. I have offered compromises where Linux does remain a family, only when it is one of many, for the reason that at the core of my argument, Linux simply has the smallest claim to being a family, therefore if the other better options are present and accounted for, then having Linux also be family, having the smallest claim to be one, then be present, is not so much an issue and I'm fine with that as a compromise despite I still prefer Linux not be a family at all.

Below is a tree hierarchy where each of the topics discussed should belong to:

Is OS family a real thing?

    A. Yes? -> Where are the sources for explaining "OS family"?

    B. No -> What should be done with it?

        1. Remove the use of "family".

        2. Keep that term because it is a useful way to categorize operating systems.

            I then argue Linux only has at best a very small claim to be a "family"

                α. Disagree with me, saying Linux is for sure a family? -> Explain ^{(note here the relationship to kFreeBSD)}.

                β. Agree with me? Here are my options to replace Linux (Unix-like, GNU Project etc.)

                Γ. Compromise? Linux remains a family, but other ones are also, such that the ones with a stronger claim to be the family are accounted for. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Correction to tree hierarchy, "Unix-like" too, is technically a type of compromise as per the discussion so far, but it is a compromise I find very likeable . GNU family would still be my primary recommendation as per the first post starting this thread ^{(note that I include GNU/Linux as a part of the suggested GNU family)}. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

"From the very beginning my case has been that "Linux" is inappropriate as the family"

Your private opinion is completely irrelevant unless you can provide sources or arguments to doubt the quality of the sources which use the term family.

" A. Yes? -> Where are the sources for explaining "OS family"?"

https://kanrisuru.com/docs/dev/util/os-family.html Chattenoir (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

While I agree that Linux is an OS family, someone defining a Ruby class for managing remote servers and posting it on RubyGems is not a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

It's what I could find on the first few pages of google.

The problem is when you search "OS family" if comes up with Family OS's (OS's marketed for family/kids use).

Here's another https://medium.com/@rush2anshugupta/the-os-family-tree-28f93714b9d4 Chattenoir (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

That's the problem with doing a Google search. Search for "Guy Macon" and you get a page about Xena, Warrior Princess. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about precision, it's about representing sources.

I've used this analogy before, and I think it is quite apt at explaining the ethos:

If wikipedia were around when people believed the Sun rotated around the Earth, wikipedia would say that the Sun rotates around the Earth. Debating whether or not this is the case on the talk page wouldnt be appropriate, only if there were sources which argued as much would it change the content of the article

The overwhelming majority of sources describe linux or gnu/linux as a 'family', whether or not in the most precise and pedantic sense they are in-fact a family is wholly irrelevant unless you can provide sources which argue as much. Chattenoir (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

There is a mistake in your presentation of this analogy: In your analogy the concepts of the earth and the sun are presumed as undisputed in the sense that they are things that exist, importantly you will note that in that hypothetical alternate reality Wikipedia, there will be wikilinks pointing from the theory of geocentrism to articles about the earth and the sun, which in this case does not accurately translate as an analog to the situation I just described with the lack of such wikilinks pointing to the "family". Your analog is too broad and entirely misses the point I made. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The analogy isn’t claiming Earth and Sun are the same kind of thing as “family”. It’s only making one point: Wikipedia follows the sources, not editors’ private ideas of what is more precise.

Any arguments you make is irrelevant unless it can be attributed to a wiki guideline, or sources. Chattenoir (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

All text on Wikipedia is necessarily written there by some editor, the editor makes the choice to include any statement or information found in those sources into the text of the article, and this is all governed by policy and consensus. On Wikipedia consensus reached in the Talk page after the topic being discussed there, can be used to decide to dismiss a particular statement that a source makes, to simply be omitted from the text of the article. That is the process we are partaking in right now. Just because a source says it doesn't mean it belongs on the text of the Wikipedia article, this is in line with policy.

Your analog precisely fails for that reason that it does not actually address the topic at hand, it is simply meta-conversation discussing the conversation itself instead of making any statement on the topic at hand. Basically commenting on the discussion instead of discussing the topic itself misses the point I made. You are not actually actively contributing to this discussion. Editors in the Talk page should aim to reach a consensus on the issue at hand by discussing that issue, I see you attempted to do so, and I assume good faith, but your statement simply did indeed miss the point I made still. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

"You are not actually actively contributing to this discussion."

Correct, because this isn't a debate club, the sources say Family, you are not presenting sources which use a different term or refute the term family, you are not presenting arguments which criticize the sources either.

If either of these things were the case, I would be discussing it instead of using meta discussion to try to make you understand why your private opinions and arguments here are irrelevant. Chattenoir (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

"you are not presenting sources which use a different term or refute the term family"

But I did do that. Earlier I have posted here, having just previously then discussed the historical facts on the nature of the operating systems, and I showed what the accurate historical account looks like, and in doing so I showed it not match the use of "Linux" as a "family". And here is the entirely miscellaneous list of sources to show the use of "GNU/Linux" as a family to specifically refute "Linux". You are just ignoring the discussion that has taken place now. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

None of those sources directly (or even indirectly?) dispute the term family, one of them ( https://web.archive.org/web/20260513191317/https://www.baeldung.com/linux/unix-linux-bsd-gnu-differences ) explicitly uses the term family.

"2.1. Origins of Unix Unix is a family of operating systems that began as a project at Bell Labs in 1969, led by Ken Thompson. " Chattenoir (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Right, I made a mistake. I agree with you on that one. It was an old list of links I posted some time ago the context of which partially escaped me, leading to me getting confused.

Now then, since this was framed as a question, I suppose I'll consider that answered. Although I do have to say it is on shaky grounds, and I'm not necessarily fully convinced but I'll go with it. OS family is a thing then because the source say so, OK.

_{Explanation of the mistake: I accidentally increased the scope of the statement that I have not provided sources to mean the entire discussion thread, instead of simply this local subthread relating to the specific question of the OS family existing or not at all, I did this in a haste because I had to quickly find the examples that prove it wrong mistakes get made I'm not a robot.} Softwareperson1000 (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

"And here is the entirely miscellaneous list of sources to show the use of "GNU/Linux" as a family to specifically refute "Linux"."

Whether to use Linux or GNU/linux is a completely separate discussion to the term "family".

Is this what you meant? I am increasingly perplexed by your arguments. Chattenoir (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, the GNU/Linux versus Linux issue is a separate subtopic of this entire thread, and can be dismissed now. Reference here. But everything else not directly on that stands. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I got confused. The lack of sources to explain what is a family of operating systems and the idea that GNU is an OS family are unrelated and I failed to pay attention. Dismiss the last few previous replies I made entirely, consider them retracted.

Talk:Linux#c-Softwareperson1000-20260921134700-Chattenoir-20260921133900

Talk:Linux#c-Softwareperson1000-20260921134300-Softwareperson1000-20260921133300

Talk:Linux#c-Softwareperson1000-20260921133300-Chattenoir-20260921131900 Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

...And here, and here

And those are the old links, I'll post more links shortly Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, I left another reply to your comment above this thread, in which I linked a source that defines when the term family is used in regard to an OS.

Using a source to make an argument is something I encourage you to do here. Chattenoir (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

What is it with the Linux talk page and so many of these absurdly drawn out debates over the most pedantic points. Chattenoir (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Serious answer:

• The Linux religion
• What If Operating Systems Were Religions?

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I have reached a conclusion; since I agree with the GNU Project's definition that a system distribution which combines the GNU software with a third party kernel is a variant of GNU and this is a viewpoint many others share also, as my main proposal to replace the use of Linux as the family is with "GNU" or alternatively "GNU/variant" as a naming convention used by the GNU Project and many others, if I can not get my way to entirely remove Linux as the family then as a compromise to retain Linux there, I now propose that the article can also include as another family mentioned in the lead "GNU/Linux" as an Efn (Explanatory footnote) similar to how it is currently done in the article Linux distribution. This I propose on the grounds that 1st for the historical reasons I have explained in conjunction with many available sources describing "GNU/Linux" as the family the operating systems in question belongs to is the more factually accurate even if not the most popular way to refer to the systems in terms of technical classification taking into account the history, as well 2nd for this is an already established precedent on the article Linux distribution where it has already been acknowledged as a significant minority viewpoint that is well warranted to be mentioned even if only in the form of an Efn which I will agree to as a compromise.

I intent to act on this, but before doing so I ask is there any reason this should not be done? I will wait for responses for some time so as to avoid some weird edit war or what ever happening in the future. For the purposes of clarity in communication, I say this will put an end to the issue, for those who have insisted on me discontinuing my apparent persistence here on this Talk page. I hope we can reach an agreement on this. - Best wishes Softwareperson1000 Softwareperson1000 (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

A compromise is not needed to retain something supported by reliable sources and with consensus to include. Per the May 2026 RfC on this talk page, consensus is against overemphasizing a minority POV term describing Linux that is already in the lede proportional to its prominence in reliable sources. A "GNU/Linux family" is a Linux family, and as the lede already covers this, there is no inaccuracy in the lede as written on that point and no reason to include it. - Aoidh (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

You have so far avoided being reported for WP:BLUDGEONING this talk page, but of you "inten[d] to act on this" because you "agree with the GNU Project's definition", knowing full well that the Wikipedia community has rejected that definition, you almost certainly will be reported at ANI, with a very good chance of the result being a topic ban on the naming or classifying of operating systems, broadly construed.

Now I don't know exactly what "act on this" means or whether your specific edits will go against consensus, and they might be fine if you avoid your favorite hobbyhorses. You do good work when you aren't carrying Stallman's water for him. I suggest that you post the exact changes you are planning on the affected article's talk page, and if that page isn't Linux posting a link here. Far better to settle disagreements on article talk pages rather than through edits and reverts. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

As Aoidh says, the lead already covers the naming conventions. Chattenoir (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

to User:Guy Macon:

1. I am still not convinced this counts as Wikipedia:BLUDGEONING. If you really do insist it should be considered bludgeoning what I am doing here, may I ask for specific quotations from that policy stating exactly what I am violating. My intention is not to violate the policy for the sake of it, I am simply not convinced I am in violation of the policy, I am open to the possibility of being proven wrong, but as far as I am concerned this is just a long discussion on the Talk page, and my understanding is that a long discussion is not forbidden in the policy.

2. What I meant by intending to act on it, is as I put it here "I will wait for responses for some time so as to avoid some weird edit war or what ever happening in the future" it means that should there have been no replies within reasonable time I would edit the article to add the Efn as I suggested, modeled after the Linux distributions article I pointed to as the example. Basically the alternative scenario to this would be if some good reason is pointed out to me within reasonable time why I shouldn't edit the article, then I'm not going to.

3. Aoidh just pointed out that the previous RfC this year, (weird as it may have been which is my personal opinion), might indeed get in the way of me editing the lead, and that is a fair point I consider it noted. I decided my intending on acting on the article by editing it to have such an Efn as explained, is delayed indefinitely as of now due to such raised concerns.

to User:Aoidh:

Is this the source you are referring to that we discussed way earlier (my archive.org version)? This terrible source that states a blatant lie stating that the distros were very specifically started from zero, as it says and from scratch, it clearly says the GNU Project were some dispersed tools and not a project seeking, and well on the way by then, to create an operating system. I do not approve of that source as I have explained earlier. My opinion is that you would need to dispute the fact that the GNU project set out to create an operating system and the third parties took that software to form the system distribution in question, so as to agree with that source and write what it says into the article, if you are acting in good faith, on the grounds that I say intentionally writing known inaccurate statements into the article is not acceptable. Agree or disagree with my personal opinion, I will officially say that my position is that I reject that source as an editor on the Talk pages discussing source to be used in the article, it contradicts the well recorded facts that have remained undisputed, if I recall you did not dispute those facts earlier which I specified about the history of the GNU project. Such a source should therefore be dismissed.

to User:Chattenoir:

That part very specifically does not address the concern of "family". As in, "GNU/Linux" may indeed be mentioned to emphasize the use and importance of GNU software in many distributions as recommended and used by the Free Software Foundation as the article puts it, but this does not address the concern of a GNU derived "family" of operating systems. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't understand what you mean.

Can you summarise everything in this very very long talk section, and just give a 10km high overview of what it is you want changed, why you want it changed, and how it reflects the sources better than what exists currently. Chattenoir (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

There is an existing fundamental ambiguity on the validity of using this term "family" to describe operating systems in the first place, as discussed here as discussed in OS template infobox talk page archives. It is questionable how established this term actually is in the field of computing. Enter Linux being called a family, it necessarily exists within in this questionable state where it is not exactly certain what determines which OS family any given specimen would belong in, or what even makes a family of operating systems to begin with. Is there a list of families of operating systems somewhere? The only support for Linux being a "family" presented here in this talk page has been that some source just calls it that.

A question remains unanswered; is Debian GNU/kFreeBSD a part of the Linux family, if not why, and what family if any it belongs in? And more can be asked, who decides?

Linux being a kernel as a technological fact. The distinction between a kernel and an operating system is a well established concept in the field of computing the design architects of Unix very explicitly said to be the case. This has been undisputed on this talk page. As a kernel, which is architecturally designed as the core component of an operating system, taking into consideration the historical facts about the GNU Project setting out to create a complete Unix-like operating system, but simply not having finished their own kernel in time, but which they had been already working on before Linux was even released, third parties finished the job of creating a complete operating system out of the GNU Project code quicker than the GNU Project themselves could, by swapping out the GNU's own native kernel called Hurd, for a third party one called Linux. Linux thus has only a very small claim to be main item to categorize the "family" of such operating systems around, as a component that replaced another. What is a "family" if not something determined by lineage? A family name inherited from the parents. GNU is the most meaningful parent in terms of the historical origins for what brought about the system distributions in question. Second "Unix-like" directly used as the family, because that's basically GNU's parent.

Basically the shortest form I can put it is, swapping out one component of the GNU Project's operating system for a third party one, does not constitute those derivatives of that GNU Project software, to be classified under that third party component that got put in.

GNU/variant is as far as I am concerned a valid interpretation of a historically GNU derived OS distro, and there are sources that say "GNU/Linux" is a family. And I can post sources which say "Linux" is short for "GNU/Linux" Softwareperson1000 (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

This is not a 10km overview.

Tell me what, exactly, on the page do you propose changing, and briefly link it with your reasoning in a concise manner. Saying "I dispute the existence of "Linux" as a family of operating systems" is not a proposal for a change. Chattenoir (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I see. The exact single best edit to make to change the article to reflect the fact that Linux is not a family would be effectively remove that word from being used. See the edit I did previously as an example of what this would look like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux&diff=prev&oldid=1352165663. Removing the term "family" in this context is the best, there is not even a need for including any undesirable "GNU" that people so despise.

Notice initial lack of opposition of User:Aoidh in Talk:Linux#c-Aoidh-20260504025400-Softwareperson1000-20260503192700, I don't remember anymore why Aoidh had a change of heart on this or if there was ever an explanation given, but Linux as a family was supposedly supported by some source which I still don't know what source in particular was referred to (see Talk:Linux#c-Softwareperson1000-20260923214800-Aoidh-20260923213400). Softwareperson1000 (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so you want to remove the use of the word family.

The sources use the word family, so I vote no. Chattenoir (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, may I please ask for your sources and if possible quotations also? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I will note, first of all, that the in-line citation ([12], ISBN 978-0-470-50384-3) on the first sentence of the lead which uses the term family first, does not seem to refer to Linux as a family in an online version of the book here https://www.mse.mn/uploads/laws/ab2c7b287105fab8158de502c50ac645d34a3a5c.pdf . Even though it says in the citation description "Page 2: Linux isn't a single OS, but rather a family of OSs", page 2 is actually a blank page on that online version, even though it is Edition 1 which is what the citation says. Very odd.

Another issue I will note, is that in the info box it says OS family: Unix-like.

This is the kind of thing that you need to be talking about btw, your arguments thus far have all been long, convoluted, and too technical for a wikipedia talk page where we should be discussing the sources and nothing else.

(This source is not currently entered into the article, and I perhaps will add it to that first sentence of the lead)

Linux with Operating System Concepts Richard fox. ISBN: 978-1-003-29332-2

Page 10, 1.2.4 So, What Is Linux?

"Linux is a family of OSs, loosely based on Unix, and largely developed by and supported by the open-source community."

I actually struggled to find any others, and in fact found a lot which said "Linux is an operating system", such as this redhat one "https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/linux/what-is-linux". Chattenoir (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

1 infobox os has always been relevant to this topic as discussed here. See an example where what you just said about os infobox was addressed directly already Talk:Linux#c-Eyesinthefire-20260805220200-Softwareperson1000-20260805215200

2 I'll post these again since you said how hard a time you have finding Linux as a "family"

    supports "GNU/Linux" as a family of operating systems + features more or less usage of "GNU/Linux" naming

https://web.archive.org/web/20260211154327/https://blog.dataumbrella.org/juan-luis-opensource-journey

https://web.archive.org/web/20260504185204/https://digerty.com/guides/free-libre-and-open-source-what-does-that-really-mean-no-really-really/

https://web.archive.org/web/20200714220130/https://www.physics.ntua.gr/konstant/ComputationalPhysics/Book/ComputationalPhysicsKNA.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20260606141529/https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2020/11/kubuntu-2004-lts-review-familiar-operating-system.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20260430095839/https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2021/04/download-fedora-34-full-editions.html

https://hackaday.com/2019/11/05/will-the-real-unix-please-stand-up/

https://plusformacion.us/what-is-the-full-form-of-gnu/

    random person at university acknowledges it as such

https://web.archive.org/web/20260501155727/https://people.umass.edu/klement/

    misc papers (examples in the wild not about history of the operating systems)

https://web.archive.org/web/20260324193405/https://www.iitj.ac.in/PageImages/Gallery/03-2025/IITJ_AR_2022_2023_English.pdf

web.archive.org/web/20250801202349/https://www.ubishops.ca/wp-content/uploads/bucstr-2014-001.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20240414113049/https://www.khoury.northeastern.edu/home/noubir/publications-local/CRKN13.pdf

    Mageia distro identifies as a part of the GNU/Linux family of operating systems

https://web.archive.org/web/20250608200628/https://sourceforge.net/software/product/Mageia/

https://web.archive.org/web/20250530114640/https://slashdot.org/software/p/Mageia/ Softwareperson1000 (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

correction. Technically that wasn't said in the same thread, but it was the one that spawned from the same topic. And I have included the OS infobox as relevant since the start since I specified in my original post that this applies to infobox as well, as they were presently (at the time) "Linux" specifically. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok? So how can you propose removing the term family when there is a wealth of sources which use the term and none that contradict them. Chattenoir (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Did you read the sources, they say "GNU/Linux" is a family, not "Linux", therefore "Linux" is not supported as a family by any of them, but there are lots to suggest otherwise. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

But you have said yourself that the term GNU/linux and linux are interchangeable, and the lead clarifies this "Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses and recommends the name "GNU/Linux", to emphasize the use and importance of GNU software in many distributions."

Linux is clearly not referring to specifically the linux kernel is it? It's referring to Linux family of Operating systems, which some call GNU/linux. In others words the family has derived it's name from the Kernel in the common vernacular. Chattenoir (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't recall saying so. I have pointed to sources which say they are interchangeable, within the specific scope that within that specific text of that source it reads that "Linux" is short for "GNU/Linux" for the purposes of that text.

"Linux" is however a popular misconception to refer to "GNU/Linux" so they would be only interchangeable one way from people mistakenly using "Linux" to actually mean "GNU/Linux", and as I pointed out there are sources which explicitly state this in their text that Linux is simply a casual word or short. So not equivalent Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

If your gripe is with the naming of Linux, you need to create a separate section for that. The majority of sources do use the term linux, it doesnt become a different situation when the term family is involved. Chattenoir (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Also I will point out that most of these sources are of poor quality, not that it matters to my point at all. But blogging sites and what not are not good sources, the reason I struggled to find sources was because I was looking for high quality ones only. Chattenoir (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@Chattenoir: I added that source here to replace this edit which did not support the content. I cited my physical copy, which is also available here. The quote can be found on the first paragraph of the second page. The infobox uses different standards (related discussion), but I don't think the Linux family being a nested subset of the Unix-like family (if consensus there remains to use 'Unix-like' as the overarching family) creates an issue where we cannot call Linux a family of operating system in the prose of the article. - Aoidh (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank-you. It's odd that the web version I found doesn't include this content as it says the edition is the same, but the frontcover is different so I suppose it's a variant.

I added this digital version to the citation. Chattenoir (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

That a source characterizes Linux distros in a way that doesn't frame it through the lens of GNU and the FSF is in no way an issue with the source itself, let alone a blatant lie. However, that is ultimately immaterial because no, I am not referring to that source. - Aoidh (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Nonetheless the information is entirely inaccurate. So then what source are you talking about? Please provide a quotation if possible. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The information does not match a minority POV's perspective but that does not make it inaccurate or unreliable, nor does simply saying that it is inaccurate make it so. Such dismissals of sources simply because they do not reflect a certain POV is in no way a compelling argument for why the suggested changes should be considered. If we have to ignore reliable sources in order to justify promoting a certain POV in a certain way, that's a very strong argument against such changes. I simply wanted to point out the issues with the proposed change, but I think it's best to follow Talk:Linux#Time to stop here. - Aoidh (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

For Linux as a family: the references seem good. I gave a look at https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4842-1392-6_3, but didn't check to see if any of the distributions he cited were "GNU/Linux" distributions as opposed to "some-other-userland/Linux" distributions.

For GNU as a family: Gentoo isn't the only case of an OS that's "GNU but not Linux", Debian/kFreeBSD was another case (according to https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/, development stopped in 2023). There are also, as noted, GNU/Hurd systems.

For Unix-like as a family: systems with a Linux kernel generally fall into that category, but they also form an interesting subcategory of that category, given that there are APIs that don't exist in other Unix-like systems, and daemons and command-line utilities that use those APIs. That's similar to macOS, which is not just Unix-like, it's a Unix(R), but there are APIs that aren't in other Unixes. (As far as I'm concerned, if you don't do at least one thing differently from other Unixes, you don't qualify as a Unix. :-)) It's listed in macOS as belonging to families Mac, Darwin, BSD, Unix-like, and Unix (the latter two could be considered redundant, as any system passing the Single UNIX Specification could be considered "Unix-like" as well as being a Unix(R). I'd say most Linux distributions could fit into "Unix-like", "Linux", and "GNU" if the latter two are considered OS families. Some might be "Linux" but not "GNU" if they don't have a GNU userland.

For Android as a Unix-like Linux distribution: Bionic has most, but not all, of POSIX implemented (https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/master/docs/status.md) - some of the exceptions appear to have been omitted for security reasons. Termux (https://termux.dev/en/) is an add-on that provides a terminal emulator and may also add some tools not shipped with Android.

For Gentoo: there are multiple systems using a GNU userland and Portage. The one that uses a Linux kernel could be considered a "Linux" or a "Linux distribution". The ones that use other kernels might be considered "GNU" systems but not "Linux" systems. The same applies to Debian. Guy Harris (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

A relevant discussion discussing the Linux (Unix-like) label on distros: Talk:Linux/Archive 52#Replace the 'Unix-like' field with 'Linux' or remove the field. - Aoidh (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

1. That's an interesting idea, of including more than one family as Guy Harris here suggested above, pointing to the example of MacOS, which has more than one entry there for 'OS family'. I hadn't thought of that. To me the issue was that having Linux is wrong, but it seems like a good idea to have more than one entry instead, that solves our problems. Since if GNU nor "Unix-like" alone are found to be any good, I will agree to a compromise such that more than one entry is included. So it would look like this with each distro falls into each separately as appropriate per system distribution, where ones which use both Linux and GNU are therefore in both families, GNU ones without Linux are GNU alone, and the Linux ones which aren't GNU are just Linux then. That makes sense and fixes the problem I perceive with Linux exclusively as the OS family. I still hold that as a priority for me "GNU" (or variations) should be the 'OS family', however indeed I don't see an issue with there existing an overlap with more than one family existing separately and simultaneously as with Mac OS which seems to set up a good precedent which should be followed, which I hadn't considered. So do we then have an agreement with the proposal of Guy Harris to have more than one family?

2. I must still point out, one single entry that covers each GNU, Linux, and Unix-like, still makes sense, to say "GNU/Linux (Unix-like)" which means for systems which use Linux but no GNU they are then just "Linux (Unix-like)" and systems with GNU but no Linux are "GNU (Unix-like).

3. From https://web.archive.org/web/20180615191615/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4842-1392-6_3 "The first Linux distributions were created from scratch, having only the Linux kernel and a bunch of dispersed tools (like the GNU Project ones) with which to work."

False, the GNU Project was never a project to develop a series of arbitrary system tools. Make note, that even the Hurd kernel was also already in development (1990) by the time Linus first released Linux (1991). While the Hurd kernel didn't get finished and thus didn't get any official release as early, the Hurd kernel is still older than Linux as a project, GNU can hardly be called a bunch of dispersed tools as it is was obviously developing a complete operating system, and was well on the way towards getting there. What happened, and this is a historical fact, is the early distro developers took the GNU Project which sought to make an operating system, threw in some third party software and a kernel, and out comes a Unix-like operating system which has it's historic roots tied to the GNU Project. For me to say that isn't in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, it is the accurate series of events in history as they played out. The historical roots tie the operating systems to the GNU Project irrevocably, and GNU should not be dismissed. I don't see why one should prefer such a source which obviously seeks to rewrite history, where that is not an accurate account of events. It was not a random series of coincidences for the developers of those early system distributions to just happen to run into a bunch of dispersed tools by coincidence and not recognize it was the GNU operating system, of which they formed the final complete system distribution out of.

4. I'll drop the Android issue Softwareperson1000 (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:VNT; saying that reliable sources are wrong based solely on your commentary and that this commentary should determine content is contrary to how the content of Wikipedia articles is determined. GNU/Linux is a minority term that is not the name of this article or the family of operating systems, as shown by reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

1. Your sources aren't reliable sources though, if they are obviously wrong in failing to recognize the key historic role the GNU Project played, which is a well recorded historical fact, or do you intent do dispute this? If the source depicts an interpretation of history which is proven false (such as asserting the Linux kernel was the founding point of the system distributions, as that one link Guy Harris pointed to did) when better record of history exist, such sources should be disqualified. There is also a question of politically motivated attempts at rewriting history in such bad sources, in removing mentions to the GNU Project as a controversial political entity many do not wish to have an affiliation to. Not wanting to affiliate with the politics of such an organization artificially warps the sources against the true prominence of the GNU project and it's relevance. So I question your sources on these grounds.

2. On another thing, in terms of pure numbers of how much popularity the "Linux" name has, I question the competency and familiarity random secondary source news paper website types would have on the technical nature of operating systems design, which is what the vast majority of support for the "Linux" name would inevitably end up being in terms of pure numbers, since the bigger popularity is the main argument in support of "Linux" after all. Being a secondary source, alone, is not a qualification to make one a reliable source. We are dealing with a technical matter which requires the opinion of people who understand the technical subject at hand, not the opinion of a news paper the only qualification of which is that they are a secondary source (which again in terms of pure numbers and popularity inevitably makes the most substantial portion of support). Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources cannot be discarded simply because they do not support your perspective on a topic. - Aoidh (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

1. Fortunately, they are not reliable sources, so we can dismiss them.

2. Well recorded historical facts are not my perspective.

3. Do you dispute the historical facts about the role the GNU Project played, in bringing about the various operating system distributions, specifically, as a series of events, where the system distribution developers took the GNU Project software started by Richard Stallman, and then formed out of it complete system distributions, using some other third party software in combination with the GNU Project's software?

4. If you do acknowledge that as an accurate and a well recorded series of events, then how do you reach the conclusion that any source which fails to recollect this accurate series of well recorded historical events and even contradicts that historical record, is in any way a reliable source? Contradicting well recorded historical facts should disqualify any such source as being reliable in relation to that issue then, or do you disagree with this? Being a 'secondary source' does not give a nonsense bad source a free pass according to the WP:NPOV, that's not the purpose of that policy, and you have misunderstood it if that's how you use it. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I do dispute the claim that "the system distribution developers took the GNU Project software started by Richard Stallman, and then formed out of it complete system distributions, using some other third party software in combination with the GNU Project's software." That's like saying that the architect who designed my house and the carpenters, etc. who built it share the credit with the wood from Georgia Pacific, the concrete from Quikrete, and the nails from Meite because they "formed out of them a complete dwelling." When you build something, the parts you buy and the tools you use don't get credit.

The GNU contribution to Linux was a bunch of small programs and a compiler -- parts and tools. GNU didn't create the small programs or the compiler. They copied and adapted the work of Bell Labs. What GNU really contributed -- the huge contribution that everyone has built on -- is the free-as-in-freedom license. That is the key creation that enabled everything else. The only reason most of the actual software made by GNU matters is because once someone makes a version of ls, mkdir, or pwd that work perfectly fine, nobody bothers reinventing the wheel.

The existence of a sawmill that performed a necessary step between a tree growing and the house I live in is also a historical fact. So is the steel mill and the cement factory. I can give you reliable sources for where nails and lumber come from. Everything is built on something else. That doesn't imply that the something else gets credit. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

1. You have now made an argument that is on the topic of who is given credit, but that is not the topic of discussion here. This topic is specifically on the technical designation of the 'OS family' entry on the Wikipedia page as well as the use of the "family" terminology used for the operating systems which use the Linux kernel and beyond. What name the system is generally referred to by, or, who is given credit is a separate matter entirely. Since your argument now seeks to dispute giving credit to GNU instead of addressing the actual family terminology and topic of this discussion in question, the GNU/Linux naming controversy and with it what the systems should be in general called and who is to be given credit being a separate issue, and with arguments on this thread not to be made one way or the other in support or in opposition of broader rewriting of articles such as to reflect one side or the other when referring to the system on that controversy (ie giving credit), I therefore, dismiss your argument on these grounds, and I don't want to hear more about the issue of giving credit.

2. However, I will still respond to your analog, the sawmill, cement factory and steel mill, and such things, are not a part of your house, are they? Such things were used throughout the process of building your house, but they weren't previous phases of, or previous iterations of, your house, and they certainly still aren't in your house nor a part of it. GNU software is still there (in your house) in the GNU operating system distributions today as a part of it, as well as being the historical and contemporary technical foundation and a framework for building the operating system, both. GNU therefore wasn't used to build an operating system and then discarded, it is the actual foundation of it on top of which the rest of the operating system currently exists. Also you can only push analogs so far. Here is another important counter argument within the other part of your analogs about the lumber used for building your house, which actually addresses the topic of OS families at hand this time, maybe the materials used in construction of your house, do, in fact, categorize your house. Maybe it's a house made of bricks, maybe some type of wood, perhaps concrete, or maybe your house is carved out of the stone on a cliff-side, categorization of your house in some metaphorical equivalent of 'OS family' in your analog, fits in perfectly. The "family" terminology escapes the analog perhaps, but as it turns out the house can be most certainly be categorized based on it's features and what it is built out of.

3. Lastly I'll mention that the part about no one wanting to replace the ls command and the like, because they can't be bothered to or whatever, is just entirely irrelevant and a total non-argument. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

That's like saying that the architect who designed my house and the carpenters, etc. who built it share the credit with the wood from Georgia Pacific, the concrete from Quikrete, and the nails from Meite because they "formed out of them a complete dwelling." When you build something, the parts you buy and the tools you use don't get credit. That would mean that neither the GNU project's software, the Linux kernel, or the other software would be credited. And, in fact, I usually see names such as "Red Hat" and "Fedora" and "Debian" and "Ubuntu" or..., not, for example, "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" or "Fedora Linux" or "Debian GNU/Linux" (Canonical don't even appear to speak of "Ubuntu Linux").

GNU didn't create the small programs or the compiler. They copied and adapted the work of Bell Labs. To be fair, what they copied and adapted were the external behavior of the Bell Labs programs and compiler; they reimplemented those from scratch. (It's not as if Stallman took the PCC source and made GCC from it.) They also significantly extended those behaviors. I.e., it's a reimplementation of Unix, not a new OS created from scratch. (And the extensions arguably are what make it a Unix - if you don't do at least one thing in your particular Unix that's not something other Unixes do, it's not really a Unix. :-))

Riiight. You started this thread with "my case is that GNU is a family of operating systems" but a response arguing that Linux is a family of operating systems and GNU is a collection of tools is "is just entirely irrelevant and a total non-argument". Not just something you disagree with, Not just something that is wrong. Entirely irrelevant and a total non-argument. Fine. I won't bother you with any further irrelevancies or non arguments. I will simply state that multiple reliable sources say that [A] Windows is a family of operating systems (Windows 3.11, Windows 2000, Witndows 7...) [B] BSD is a family of operating systems (FreeBSD, NetBST, OpenBSD. Ghost BSD...), and [C] Linux is a family of operating systems (Linux Mint, Slackware Linux, Tiny Core Linux...). To be fair, a google search did find two non-reliable sources that say "GNU/Linux family of operating systems" - the FSF and Wikipedia and one that says "Linux/GNU family of operating systems" (a public comment to a proposed law). I could not find a single source that says "GNU family of operating systems". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Some early userland-for-Linux history:

• Linus spoke of having ported bash 1.08 and GCC 1.40 to the Linux kernel in his announcement of said kernel. He did not say anything in that post about a C library.
• Some of his early postings speak of a "really minimal" library with "partially free" sources (so perhaps some parts came from the GNU C library, but the non-free parts obviously didn't), with "Earl Chews estdio" being used.
• At some point, apparently, developers forked the GNU libc to make the "Linux libc"; eventually, they used standard GNU libc. Other C libraries, such as musl, have also been used.
• What appears to have been the first Linux distribution for people other than complete Linuxheads, MCC Interim Linux, shipped with GNU utilities as well as some non-GNU utilities. This document for MCC Interim Linux doesn't say what C library is used, although it does mention the GNU C++ library.

So, yes, software from the GNU project was used early in Linux development. The original C library wasn't from GNU, and I don't think there was a GNU init at that point (according to https://www.oldlinux.org/Linus/, the mid-October 1991 release didn't even have init, it just came up single-user as root). Networking tools may have come from BSD. Guy Harris (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I will post here as a reply to yours Guy Harris, but with the intention of generally continuing the discussion without addressing any one specific editor individually, in fact I invite anyone to reply,, posting here, because what I will say ties directly into what has been said before in the above thread continuity.

1. As it is well recorded history, that the GNU Project was integral to the early distros and also what came after (note that Debian Manifesto reads "in the spirit of Linux and GNU", and Linus Torvalds earlier mentioned GNU in his announcement of Linux, therefore showing GNU wasn't seen as a mere set of tools they just accidentally stumbled on as some false and uninformed accounts would claim). [continues in the separate part 3. of my post] If GNU is supposedly only instrumental as a series of tools to develop a "Linux" family of operating systems, then how do you (you as in the supporters of that case) explain, how in your system the broader kernel offerings GNU systems make use of, fit in? See GNU variants here for context. Let's look at Debian GNU variants, there are more kernel offerings than one, of which FreeBSD and Linux had an official release, with Hurd still experimental but usable, and there are also several other more or less experimental and/or historical ports that didn't gain much success, where what each such option has in common is that each is obviously still Debian, and every time Debian uses the GNU userland, which together with Debian's package manager and it's overall design (as an Unix-like implementation) are what define Debian as an operating system. Debian is a part of the GNU family of operating systems because of it's historical lineage dating back to the founding of the GNU Project, with GNU also serving as a common unifying identity within the Debian ecosystem that ties all the different kernel branches together, the kernel being one interchangeable component. Debian thus, can not be a member of any "Linux" family, as proven by an official release of Debian using the FreeBSD kernel (note that being end-of-life is irrelevant, actively receiving updates is not required to be an operating system, many OS's never get updates). Question, how do you explain the presence of Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and still support a "Linux" family of operating systems at the same time, when there is such a glaring contradiction and/or an exception made where somehow different versions of Debian aren't in the same family, or either you would automatically insert Debian as a whole into the "Linux" family without giving further thought to the other kernels Debian also has?

Notice that Debian is currently, correctly designated as being "Unix-like" in the 'OS family' of it's Wikipedia article, which means this adds further support for my case in providing established precedent in favor of such categorization "Unix-like" for similar system distributions (with "Unix-like" being a compromise I said earlier I would agree to, to remove "Linux" as the family). The same should be done I argue, for other similar GNU derived systems which use Linux, even if they do provide alternative kernels to Linux, on the basis that the fundamental framework of those other similar operating system distributions is essentially the same, as is shown by some distros like Guix System and Gentoo with their introduction of Hurd kernel variants (Gentoo especially having broad Unix-like support with their package manager), and the Arch Hurd project, they all belong in the same family and Wikipedia's 'OS family' should reflect that. So I argue therefore that OpenSUSE or Mageia or Slackware as an examples of operating system distributions, are not that dissimilar from Debian, so therefore they should all belong in the same OS family on Wikipedia, which currently they are not assigned as such in 'OS family'. So in fact, there already does exist an inconsistency on Wikipedia as a malpractice of poor standardization and categorization, before I even started this argument, where applying my argument will fix this. This current state of things with it's current inconsistencies also further supports my case in showing the "Linux family" has failed, and does not in fact work because it causes such inconsistencies and has such a poor track record to show for it.

Furthermore, that inconsistent application of 'OS family' present in Wikipedia now, supports my other side-argument within this larger debate, that this is a nonsense made-up concept on Wikipedia to begin with, "OS family", which means my opponents can not pull the Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point Of View against me on this issue in an attempt to evade my argument, as has been done several times on this thread so far, when this whole premise of "OS family" as it is de-facto applied on wikipedia is already a made-up concept which the original editor who presumably thought of it, would have already been the original violator of that WP:NPOV policy. Therefore such attempts to police the WP:NPOV against me now, would indicate seletive enforcement of that policy against those who object to the idea, but the original support of that concept of "Linux" as an 'OS family' is not subject so such policy enforcement. However, with that said, I do not object to there being 'OS family', what I object to, is selective policy enforcement and having inaccurate nonsense information on the 'OS family', which I seek to correct by making this case here.

2. With all this here, I say, my system works, and fixes exsiting problems. I have what is a consistent system where Debian as an example is always a member of the GNU operating system family, regardless of the specific kernel offering in question (or "Unix-like" instead of "GNU" as a compromise), Fedora and all the others belong in the same family, Alpine is just Unix-like, whereas your system (supporters of "Linux family) would have holes, gaps, be riddled with inconsistencies, and would require the likes of massive double standards when considering the broader scope of Unix-like operating systems and beyond, where it is not well established precedent to pay this much attention to the kernel specifically (you are treating Linux as a special snowflake, and with that making arguments which only make sense in the immediate proximity (if even that much) of Linux, while these operating systems in question are a part of a broader scope of the Unix-like sphere).

I argue you (supporters of "Linux family") do not have a holistic case in support of your claim, yours being myopic and Linux centered, but I have a full case which makes sense in a broader context and fixes existing problems. I argue the historical facts, as well as the established precedent in the Darwin and especially the BSD family of operating systems conventionally being seen as such, are against your case of "Linux" family, thus on the grounds as explained in this post, and including on the basis of the existing questionable state of the 'OS family' on Wikipedia, I declare, that such sources which contradict the well recorded historical facts regarding the GNU Project's relation to the system distributions using it's software and/or the well established precedent in categorizing operating systems families based on the historical lineage as with the BSD family, as unreliable sources which can not be used to support the case for a "Linux family" of operating systems.

3. GNU was not a means to an end, to make such an assertion that GNU was merely a series of miscellaneous tools that were used to build an operating system, is entirely arbitrary, and more importantly, it is based on personal motivations to say so, as in, to say from a certain point of view what the perceived motivation behind using the GNU software was, therefore that violates the WP:NPOV. Statements made from a biased point of view regarding the motivation, therefore are not based on actual historical facts or technical facts regarding the nature of the operating systems, such arguments can therefore be dismissed as being against the policy. GNU was it's own Project to form a complete operating system, where GNU Project already had it's own kernel in the works well before Linux, 1990 versus 1991. GNU having it's own kernel proves (one proof among others) it is not a set of tools, but a development effort to form a complete operating system. As such, it is then a fact to point out, that any third party who then forms and distributes a complete operating system derived from the use of such software from that Project, is therefore obviously doing just that, forming a complete operating system distribution based around the use of software from that Project, in other words, they are completing as a derivative work an operating system which the GNU Project sought to make using their software. There is the historical lineage, and thus the established precedent as with the BSD family, the GNU Project is the original Berkeley Unix equivalent in the comparison. The distro developers did swap out the kernel from GNU Project's one for another, had they not swapped that one component, there wouldn't be a case for any "Linux" family. Therefore the only support the "Linux" family idea has is that the supporters of it have to artificially over-inflate the importance of the fact that the distro developers use a different kernel as that component of the operating system. The kernel is a component of an Unix-like operating system which is interchangeable, as the Debian GNU/x variants show. The kernel is important to the function of an operating system alright, but it's not that important that it trumps everything else and to become the single deciding factor. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

correction: instead of neutral point of view having been pulled against me several times, WP:NPOV twice and WP:OR and WP:VNT have been suggested against me. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

The kernel is a component of an Unix-like operating system which is interchangeable, as the Debian GNU/x variants show. Changing the kernel results in some visible changes to the system. For example, the cgroups feature is a function of the Linux kernel, and won't be available for GNU/something-other-than-Linux unless it's reimplemented on the latter kernel, and Mach messaging is a feature of the GNU Hurd, and won't be available unless the GNU part is atop a Mach-based kernel such as XNU or the Mach messaging mechanism is reimplemented in the other kernel. There are other kernel-dependent mechanisms, such as the mechanisms for passing file descriptors from one process to another over Unix-domain sockets, packet-capture-and-injection mechanisms, kernel-dependent socket mechanisms, and so on.

I.e., it's not as if there are no changes in capabilities if you switch from one kernel to another. A lot of userland stuff won't notice, but there is userland code that's either dependent on one particular kernel's mechanism or that has platform-dependent code for handling different kernels (I'm a core developer and maintainer for one of those bits of userland code).

So there are things common to Linux-kernel-based systems, regardless of the userland, and not present in non-Linux-kernel-based systems, regardless of the userland. Guy Harris (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Changing any part of the system as "interchangeable" does not have to stand for being a 1:1 drop in replacement as I use it here, in that of course changing any part of a system that deviates at all from some universal standard is necessarily going to introduce changes and breakage for other software that depends on those specific features, but this is true to any software and so not unique to kernels and so kernels don't deserve special credit for this. Any software specific features, at any part of the operating system, when another software depends on those features, is going to break things when that software being relied on is swapped for another one, this is inevitable, but is also not what I meant by "interchangeable". This is well explained using another example, the Unix shell is "interchangeable", there are lots of them, bash, ksh, fish, etc. however all such shells are not necessarily 1:1 feature parity with one another, yet they are an interchangeable component of an Unix-like system. The shell is an especially interchangeable component of an Unix-like system, where the kernel may be more difficult to "swap out", but it can be done for the kernel too as the GNU variants evidently prove. Linux specific features are in concept no different to how Bash extends the features as compared to a pure POSIX shell, both are arbitrary extensions or deviations, obviously when software relies on them things break, they are still interchangeable. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there are, as I've noted, things common to members of the set of XXX/Linux systems, just as there are things common to members of the set of GNU variants, and the set of things common to the set of XXX/Linux systems that are not in all GNU variants. That was the pointer I was trying to make.

That's why I do not dispute the existence of "Linux" as a family of systems. Guy Harris (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

OK. Is your position then that you also do see there exists a GNU family which overlaps with the Linux in some places? As with the Mac OS example you brought up earlier which has multiple entries in OS family. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with "the other Guy". My position is that the Linux family of operating systems does exist, and consists of all OSs that use the Linux kernel. The GNU family of operating systems also exists, and consists of all OSs that use the GNU Mach kernel.

BSD is more difficult. BSD does not have a stand-alone kernel but is developed as a whole operating system. That's why we have Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and not Debian GNU/kBSD. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Since you acknowledged GNU as a family of operating systems when it's own kernel is used, would you then agree that distros like Guix System and Debian which offer Hurd as as an option for the kernel, then need to be categorized under 'OS family' as including "GNU" there? Arch Hurd is currently formatted as "Unix-like (GNU/Hurd)" which is a bit odd, repeating the kernel is redundant as Hurd is already the kernel of GNU, so it's stating GNU twice where it's GNU userland then GNU's kernel but then in cases where the kernel is actually different the current state of things in Wikipedia is that then the kernel absorbs the entire system and becomes just "Linux" in case that kernel is used, so why this insane system on Wikipedia where the own kernel needs to be differentiated in such a context as if that makes any sense?

I will point out, that there is nothing difficult about the system I propose, simply find the oldest common point of origin as the historical root for any given system distribution, and have that as the OS family, with some edge cases where two systems are roughly evenly combined which makes it one / the other as convention. With a rule like that everything neatly falls into distinct categories, sure there may be some oddball systems because Unix-like systems just are like that, but my system is infinitely superior to a nonsense system riddled with double standards and exceptions as with "Linux", where no one calls XNU an OS family. Why have I not heard anyone ever refer to systems based on Darwin as being based around the use of the XNU kernel, or the XNU family of operating systems, Darwin is a complete operating system, so there is no special reason to pay attention to the kernel specifically, BSDs are complete systems, the only difference between them and GNU is that GNU was left incomplete at the time the forks started appearing, meanwhile those other systems were released as completed by the time any other systems based on them rolled around, but GNU was definitely a project to create a complete operating system, it just happened that it was other people who finished the task before the GNU Project themselves.

On the BSDs, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD are their own independent operating systems, they are a part of the BSD family of operating systems. There could be a Debian GNU/BSD in case such a variant used the kernel from the original Berkeley distribution before it split into the different projects. Just like how the original BSD existed and got split into the other BSD systems which form the family, even if GNU was incomplete it was a development effort to build an operating system, then it too was split into different independent systems. However their level of independence is actually weaker than in the BSD world, where GNU/Linux systems still use the same software from GNU and haven't diverged into their own projects like the BSD ones have, which actually means GNU/Linux has an even stronger case for having to be it's own designated group of operating systems, as either "GNU/Linux" or just "GNU" where the BSD systems have less common with each other than the GNU/Linux ones do. The only thing tethering the BSD systems together other than some code spreading from one project to another, is that historical root. So if the BSDs as different systems which don't share a common development project as the base on top of which they build separate implementations of that system as with Linux and GNU but are still a part of the same family, then how come GNU as not only the historical root and point of origin in the timeline, but also the still current development base, alongside Linux with GNU/Linux ones, isn't a valid base for an "OS family" for all such systems derived from it then? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The question is who decides what an ancestor is. If someone keeps the kernel but changes literally everything else, is it still a descendant? How about if they change just the kernel and keep everything else the same?

I made up a special rule just for BSD. If it comes from Berkley, who hold the UNIX license, I call it the BSD family simply because saying NetBSD and OpenBSD are different OS families each with one member is silly. Maybe they are all part of the UNIX family of operating systems? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

If a currently "GNU/Linux" distribution removes all GNU software, when it removes the last remaining part of the GNU heritage I would say it is not a GNU anymore. This may be the case with Ubuntu in the future, (possibly depending on whether it actually happens) where Ubuntu might remove all the GNU software from their system which they have started doing. In that case Ubuntu will then be "Unix-like" just like Alpine is. So append the oldest living ancestor so to speak to my criteria then, which I stated earlier about finding that ancestor. Ultimately such a categorization of "OS family" is always entirely arbitrary, but my case is that "GNU" or "GNU/Linux" or even "Unix-like" simply has a stronger claim to be the family rather than "Linux". In other words "Linux" has the smallest claim to the systems is my argument at it's core.

Unix > GNU > Debian GNU/Linux. Unix and Unix-like should be used interchangeably for an OS family because the only difference is trademark status

Unix > BSD > OpenBSD as another example

GNU/Linux a taxonomic subcategory of GNU, which means every GNU/Linux system is a GNU system, the default for a GNU is in terms of it's kernel the Hurd, so it doesn't need to be specified so unless otherwise noted GNU alone is GNU with Hurd. Each GNU system is also a part of the Unix-like family of operating systems which also include the BSDs, Darwin, all the proprietary ones, and others.

For a system that would be a full GNU with it's kernel too, that removed all userland GNU software but retained the Hurd, that would still be a GNU system, because it obviously still retains GNU in there, only once everything is removed the oldest living ancestor then dies I would say. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

See Talk:Linux#The proper name is Apache/Busybox/GNOME/GNU/Java/KDE/LILO/LLVM/Mozilla/Perl/Slackware/TeX/Minix/Xorg/Xfree386/Linux. Your logic is flawed. You start with the false assumption that Linux should be called GNU/Linux, and from that assumption you draw conclusions about the family it should be classified in.

Again I tell you, when you create a free and open source project, you get to name it. It doesn't matter what you based it on or what other software you include. Common sense, Wikipedia consensus and international trademark law agree that you and you alone get to name it. The ONLY "GNU/Linux distributions" are those that voluntarily choose to add "GNU" to the name. Their choice. Not yours, not Stallman's. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

"Again I tell you, when you create a free and open source project, you get to name it."

I see we have an agreement then, Richard Stallman created the GNU Project and he gets to name it. GNU it is Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, GNU is called GNU. That doesn't mean distributions have to include "GNU" in their names. Skynxnex (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

but what is it a distribution of? I am not convinced most people participating in related discussions on this sort of topic even understand what the word means. A distribution, is not a type of operating system, software distribution in case of GNU software means, that this thing right here, is a distribution of GNU Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Unix is a family of multitasking, multi-user computer operating systems that derive from the original AT&T Unix, the development of which started in 1969 at the Bell Labs research center by Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, and others."
• "Research Unix [Also known as Version 2 UNIX] refers to the early versions of the Unix operating system ... developed in the Bell Labs Computing Sciences Research Center. The term Research Unix first appeared in the Bell System Technical Journal (1978)" --Research Unix
• "The origin of C is closely tied to the development of the Unix operating system, originally implemented in assembly language on a PDP-7 by Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, ... The C compiler and some utilities made with it were included in Version 2 Unix [1978], which is also known as Research Unix." --C (programming language)

AT&T owned the trademark for Unix until it sold it to Novell in 1992. Novel transferred it to The Open Group in 1993. Nobody other than the Open group gets to decide what Unix is called, so please stop trying to rename it to Multics/Unix. That's for the Open Group to decide. They own the name.

• "Development of the GNU software was initiated by Richard Stallman while he worked at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. It was called the GNU Project, and was publicly announced on September 27, 1983" --GNU
• "The GNU Compiler Collection ... was first released in 1987 by Richard Stallman, GCC 1.0 was named the GNU C Compiler since it only handled the C programming language." --GNU Compiler Collection

Richard Stallman (or perhaps he has transferred ownership to the GNU project?) owns the trademark for GNU. Nobody other than Stallman gets to decide what GNU is called, so please stop trying to rename it Multics/Unix/GNU. That's for Stallman to decide. He owns the name. He also owns GCC, so please stop trying to rename it to K&R C/GCC That's for Stallman to decide. He owns the name.

• "Linux is a family of free-and-open-source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, which was first released on 17 September 1991 by Linus Torvalds." --Linux

Linus Torvalds owns the trademark for Linux. Nobody other than Torvalds gets to decide what GNU is called, so please stop trying to rename it Multics/Unix/GNU/Linux. That's for Torvalds to decide. He owns the name.

• "Slackware is a Linux distribution created by Patrick Volkerding in '1993." --Slackware

Patrick Volkerding owns the trademark for Slackware. Nobody other than Volkerding gets to decide what Slackware is called. (He decided to call it "Slackware Linux" but everyone else calls it "Slackware"), so please stop trying to rename it Multics/Unix/GNU/Linux/Slackware. That's for Volkerding to decide. He owns the name.

• "Android is an operating system owned by Google which is based on a modified version of the Linux kernel and other free and open-source software, [none of it from GNU] designed primarily for touchscreen-based mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers. Android has historically been developed by a consortium of developers known as the Open Handset Alliance, but its most widely used version is primarily developed by Google. First released in 2008" --Android (operating system)

Google owns the trademark for Android. Nobody other than Google gets to decide what Android is called, so please stop trying to rename it Multics/Unix/GNU/Linux/Android. That's for Google to decide. They own the name. And they have specificly rejected "Andoid Linux" as a name.

What's that I hear? You (Softwareperson1000) don't want to rename Slackware to Multics/Unix/GNU/Linux/Slackware? It's only Linus Torvalds that you want to seize ownership of his trademark from? That's an ... interesting ... decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

What on earth did you just post? What has Multics got to do with this? Also who said this discussion thread is supposed to be about renaming things in the first place? You brought up the convention that the one who starts a thing gets to name it just recently, and to that I humorously remarked with sarcasm that that RMS started the GNU Project and as I've already established earlier that the complete system distributions which are the descendants of GNU, such systems ought to therefore be rightfully called so, accepting this line premise of using that convention you just brought up, however that is actually my position, the sarcasm was the part that we agreed. I only responded to what you just said within the scope of you first mentioning that convention of naming things, prior to that I already told you this thread is not about giving credit Talk:Linux#c-Softwareperson1000-20260506120000-Guy Macon-20260505220900 and it is also not tied to the naming of things, I have explicitly made it clear the GNU/Linux naming controversy in terms of what the system is generally referred to as ie what it's called or what it's name is, is not the issue here. I have humored this topic enough, stop talking about the name. This discussion is about the specific classification in terms of a designated "OS family" entry or the use of "family of operating systems" and related terminology, which is not the same as what the systems should in general be referred to as. I do have opinions and viewpoints also on those other issues, and we can discuss them separately elsewhere, but please keep it out of this discussion you are not contributing anything useful to it and I will dismiss such statements by you. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Please don't write sentences such as "GNU/Linux a taxonomic subcategory of GNU, which means every GNU/Linux system is a GNU system" If you don't want responses talking about "GNU/Linux". GNU/Linux does not exist. It isn't an operating system, a distribution, a family of anything, or anything else. GNU/Linux will only exist if Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds (the owners of GNU and Linux) ever agree that it exists.

Also, please don't write things like "I've already established earlier that the complete system distributions which are the descendants of GNU, such systems ought to therefore be rightfully called so" if you don't want replies saying that you have established no such thing and have failed to explain why we shouldn't tack Multics on to the name of anything that is a descendant of Multics. You keep applying your descendant rule in one place and one place only and you can't explain why you don't apply the same rule anywhere else.

In my experience, the best way to stop talking about something is stop talking about it. Demanding that other people not talk about it so you can get in the last word is far less effective. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not concerned with your life advice given in the last paragraph, this is a specific discussion thread taking place in the Talk page of a technical software project that focuses on a specific established topic, if you are unwilling to keep the conversation and your comments on-topic then you need to go somewhere else.

If you want to talk about Multics, then talk about Multics, that's fine, I have no issue with you bringing it up in relation to families of operating systems as per the lineage and descendants, so you saying "You keep applying your descendant rule in one place and one place only and you can't explain why you don't apply the same rule anywhere else." is entirely unfounded, I am willing to discuss Multics, what I am not willing to discuss is renaming operating systems, on this thread Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

New question to supporters of Linux as a family. If Linux as a kernel qualifies as the base around which the "family" is defined against, where is the Mach microkernel family of operating systems? Mach was developed at Carnegie Mellon University as a standalone OS kernel project following the microkernel architecture just like Linux was, not as a part of any specific holistic operating system project. How Mach differs from Linux is that it only implements the core of the microkernel design and not the rest of the kernel, where it's kind of like the core of the kernel of the operating system, where the OS kernel is itself the core of the OS, and Mach is microkernel based where Linux is monolithic. If Mach as the deepest most core component of an OS kernel qualifies as the foundation on which later complete operating systems and their implementations of complete kernels based around Mach, qualify as being in the same sort of historic category that Linux is under which grants Linux the claim to the family of operating systems, then we should also have the Mach family of operating systems which encompasses Darwin and it's derivatives as well as GNU Hurd based operating systems. Is there a reason not to classify Mach similarly to Linux as the base and the foundation on which the rest of the operating systems were built, and thus has the strongest claim to the operating system family, if Linux has that? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Mach was developed at Carnegie Mellon University as a standalone OS kernel project following the microkernel architecture just like Linux was, not as a part of any specific holistic operating system project. Presumably "just like Linux was" means "just like Linux was developed as a standalone monolithic kernel, not as part of any specific holistic operating system project".

we should also have the Mach family of operating systems which encompasses Darwin and it's derivatives as well as GNU Hurd based operating systems In the sense that it's a family of OSes that support Mach messaging, a case could be made that all OSes that support Mach messaging (as an API exposed to developers) are a family. Guy Harris (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes I meant by the part on just like Linux was that they were both standalone projects, I perhaps worded that poorly but that's what I was trying to say.

Darwin's XNU and GNU's Hurd, both actually take the Mach and build the rest of the kernel around it. It's not a separate different project that is merely compatible with Mach, that they both made, they actually use the Mach. Not necessarily Mach in the exact original form, where both would have forked it into their own projects such as GNU Mach being distinct from the original Mach as developed Carnegie Mellon University but it's still essentially the same thing. Both XNU and Hurd actually use Mach at the core. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they do, albeit somewhat differently:

   $ fs gnu/hurd/gnumach | xargs wc -l | egrep 'total$'
     499731 total
   $ fs macos/xnu | xargs wc -l | egrep 'total$'
    2382167 total

(fs is a script wrapped around find that finds source files). The kernel-mode code is about a factor of 4-5 larger for XNU (and that doesn't include all the kernel-mode loadable modules that implement various device drivers, file servers, etc.. Much of that is done in userland in the Hurd:

   $ fs gnu/hurd/hurd | xargs wc -l | egrep 'total$'
     346153 total

But both of them support Mach messaging as an IPC mechanism that developers can use, so they're both members of the Mach family of OSes. Guy Harris (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

So if you say they are indeed a part of such a family, should the Mach article reflect that and speak of the "family" of such operating systems, as well as articles on Darwin, GNU, and Mac OS etc. be rewritten to refer to them as a part of the Mach family? And the "OS family" reflect that also, where currently eg MacOS does not mention Mach as any "family". Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that might make sense. An OS can, of course, belong to more than one family, e.g. a GNU/Linux distribution would belong to the family of Unix-like systems, as well as belonging to the Linux family and the family of GNU variants, and macOS would belong to the family of Unix-like systems (and the subfamily of Unix systems, as it's passed the Single UNIX Specification test suite), as well as the Mach family. Guy Harris (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd say "the family of GNU variants" really is just the GNU family of operating systems where each of the variants are essentially the members of that family, GNU. I have no issue with there being a family entry defined around the use of any particular kernel present, alongside other entries like how you describe. My problem is that I don't see the kernel alone as being sufficient to describe the family around, and in particular Linux but Mach too I would say. So do you and I have an agreement then on this topic that there should be multiple entries, and that for those systems which are GNU and Linux they should include "GNU" or variations as one of the entries? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Continuing from what I said in the previous above reply, I still prefer Linux not be a family at all. It already having been an established context that I would be willing to agree to a compromise where Linux is one family among many, I still hold that that would be a compromise to have any such Linux family at all. I have no issue with there being multiple entries with Linux one of them if that's the compromise we should agree to. But since no one seems want to agree with me to such a compromise I must press this issue, that the single most important question still remains unanswered from my opposing side; if Debian is a "Linux" then how in your system does Debian GNU/kFreeBSD fit in? Even if there was to exist a Linux family of operating systems, only the GNU/Linux variant of Debian would belong in that family, GNU/kFreeBSD wouldn't. Since both the GNU/Linux and the GNU/kFreeBSD variants each are Debian, and Debian is a GNU in both cases, as one isn't a "Linux" therefore there exists a categorization for the families of operating systems Debian belongs in that is greater than that of the supposed Linux family, those being GNU and/or Unix-like.

1. An operating system is categorized into families in a tree hierarchy where each is a child of its immediate parent family determined by the historical point of origin where it came from (includes both direct forks and clone operating system modeled after another one). If it has two such parents that combined together roughly evenly it is the child of both families.

2. Any operating system can itself be a parent of a family of operating systems it has spawned.

3. Thus any operating system is a member of those families it has as it's parents, as well as their parents and beyond.

That is my current revision of the rule that forms a coherent system with which to categorize operating systems neatly into accurate groupings with no exceptions and double standards, and this without having to do revisionist history by pretend the GNU Project didn't happen (like some faulty sources would suggest that have been used to support the Linux family argument on this discussion thread), nor to have to redefine the language used in computing to pretend a kernel is an operating system as if the distinction does not exist (which no one would have said a kernel and OS are the same until people wanted Linux to be an OS to avoid naming GNU). Edge cases will always exist, those are inevitable as with any system that broadly categorizes things into general groups, but at least my system is consistent and applies to all operating systems by putting them into categories that are useful, and importantly accurate, both historically and technologically. My opposing side seems to have vibes, nonsense, and rewriting of history to back its arguments, resulting in gaps and double standards in the grouping of systems, I have accurate accounts of historical facts and the technical facts on my side. I conclude "Linux" as it is presently used, is a popular misconception. As such it has no place as a representation of technical facts, which should be accurate on Wikipedia, not bend to appeal to popular misconceptions. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Linux being a family of operating systems is supported by reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia articles use to determine content. Per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. - Aoidh (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I already ruled such sources as unreliable which fail to accurately account for relevant historical facts earlier. Wikipedia's policy also requires that the information be correct. Intentionally using flawed sources is not in accordance to policy. Each source an editor chooses to use is inevitably that editor's opinion and an interpretation of what constitutes a valid source. I have explained why that type of source is bad. It is important to realize that historical facts, and technical facts about the nature of the operating systems, are not my opinion. What I have done is pointed out facts, technical in nature and historical, my opinion as to whether they are a good thing or a bad thing is irrelevant and has not been a subject of interest in this discussion, the facts I have pointed out contradict the validity of using such sources which I say are unreliable as explained. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Disagreeing with sources do not make them unreliable, and the conclusions are WP:OR. - Aoidh (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says that sourcing is a matter of editor's judgement, and I'm basically telling you that your judgement in choosing that source is poor, and is contradicted by well established historical facts. The important role of the GNU Project in the history of the OS distributions combining GNU and Linux is undisputed, or do you dispute that fact? The technical terminology of "operating system" versus a "kernel" was a well established distinction before the Linux-centric revisionist history, or do you have sources which say they are the same which predate Linux?

Fact, a system of categorization which fails to accurately account for Debian GNU/kFreeBSD by calling Debian "Linux", is an incomplete broken model for use on categorization of that operating system, or can you explain how Debian GNU/kFreeBSD fits in if Debian is "Linux"?

Point to me the part where a fact I point out is inaccurate or you wish to dispute it, then we can discuss it, I have heard enough misuse of "policy says" in lieu of actual arguments. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The reason policy is being cited is because personal opinions and the conclusions based on them do not and cannot supersede reliable sources simply because an editor does not agree with what they say. That is how content on Wikipedia is determined, not arguing when reliable sources contradict an opinion. Aoidh (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Different sources contradict though. Will you change your mind, when I later come back with a list of reliable sources which do in fact accurately account for the historical facts about the presence of the GNU Project in the OS distributions? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

No source discussed or that I could find contradicts the statement that Linux is a family of operating systems, and the presence of the GNU Project in the OS distributions does nothing to contradict this. Drawing conclusions not explicitly stated in sources is WP:OR and cannot be used to attempt to nullify what reliable sources unambiguously make clear in order to change content on an article. I'm going to take the advice from Talk:Linux#Time to stop below and not going to be commenting further as there is nothing new here being discussed, given that Wikipedia policy and consensus are against such a change. - - Aoidh (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Here are sources which show as an example what the accurate account of history is:

web.archive.org/web/20260714110250/https://linuxiac.com/what-is-gnu-linux

web.archive.org/web/20260520092521/https://jonbeckett.com/2026/02/03/gnu-project-free-software-revolution

web.archive.org/web/20260513191317/https://www.baeldung.com/linux/unix-linux-bsd-gnu-differences

web.archive.org/web/20260331152506/https://www.britannica.com/topic/GNU-Project

https://linuxbash.sh/post/the-evolution-of-the-gnu-project Softwareperson1000 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

And here is a miscellaneous list I have gathered, of the use of GNU/Linux as a "family" with no particular regard to whether the subject matter is on the histories of nature of the operating systems showing it's adoption as a term that is actually used in the real world and not just articles on the GNU Project alone

https://web.archive.org/web/20200714220130/https://www.physics.ntua.gr/konstant/ComputationalPhysics/Book/ComputationalPhysicsKNA.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20260501155727/https://people.umass.edu/klement/

https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2020/11/kubuntu-2004-lts-review-familiar-operating-system.html

https://www.ubishops.ca/wp-content/uploads/bucstr-2014-001.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20260324193405/https://www.iitj.ac.in/PageImages/Gallery/03-2025/IITJ_AR_2022_2023_English.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20260211154327/https://blog.dataumbrella.org/juan-luis-opensource-journey

https://plusformacion.us/what-is-the-full-form-of-gnu/

https://web.archive.org/web/20260504185204/https://digerty.com/guides/free-libre-and-open-source-what-does-that-really-mean-no-really-really/

https://web.archive.org/web/20260430095839/https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2021/04/download-fedora-34-full-editions.html

https://hackaday.com/2019/11/05/will-the-real-unix-please-stand-up/

https://web.archive.org/web/20240414113049/https://www.khoury.northeastern.edu/home/noubir/publications-local/CRKN13.pdf Softwareperson1000 (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says that your "actual arguments" don't matter. Only sources matter. "The definition of original research includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that one is not adding original research, one must be able to cite – even if not yet expressly cited – reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." --WP:OR, Also see WP:SYNTH.

Speaking of sources, Why Debian says "Debian is a Linux-based operating system" (See WP:ABOUTSELF) and The Debian Manifesto says "Debian Linux is a brand-new kind of Linux distribution."

I suggest that you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch01s02.en.html

Debian website has use of both sorts of terminology to refer to the operating system.

Besides, even saying Linux-based does not in concept contradict the presence of GNU as a meaningful part of the system, note that Richard Stallman also once suggested calling the distros Linux-based GNU system long ago. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Do note also that this technical explanation of the nature of the operating system has a stronger standing than a mere mention of calling Debian a Linux-based OS Softwareperson1000 (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Time to stop

Guy posted about this on WP:RSN, and I saw it. First, let me assure you guys that I really like Unix and have been using it since Berkeley Unix in the early 1980's. So I have seen families come and go. Secondly, I am disappointed that you guys who obviously know the subject are arguing about such a trivial issue. The point is that whether Linux is a family or semi-family will make no difference to this world. There are many software articles that need fixes. That would be a better thing to do. Have good day all. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The Linux/GNU Linux argument was already tiresome in the early 2000s and hasn't become less so in the intervening decades. Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Having the 'OS family' entry on the distro's infobox template on it's article list Unix-like, GNU, Linux should not be tiresome.

This concept of the OS infobox template used on the articles is a nonsense made-up thing on Wikipedia to begin with, thus it is subject to arbitrary whims of the editors from the start. I have not yet seen any source presented to me by anyone which has a detailed history of operating systems going over a system that separates them into well defined categories, used as a basis to have such an entry on the OS infobox template at all. Which means my argument is as good as any, from that point of view. I am perfectly happy to agree to a compromise to have those three entries on the distros on their infobox, then I'll tolerate Linux as a "family" as a compromise, leaving this article Linux untouched and still calling it a family. So if it is really the time the stop now, then I'm fine with Linux being a family so long as it's among many, but alone it's no good, because Linux has the weakest claim to a family of the three. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The above two editors in this subheading are not communicating this clearly enough for my taste: the issue is not that the editors you've interacted in this thread disagree with you in some part of the minutiae of the history of what is an isn't an operating system and why the technical particulars of - as I think you would put them - "operating systems based on the Linux kernel" disqualify them as being "Linux" as a family. They disagree with you in that reliable sources overwhelming treat and refer to Linux as a family of operating systems. I see broad consensus in favor of this in this thread and elsewhere.

You need to drop the stick about whether Linux is an operating system/family and find somewhere else to edit. This is not a productive discussion. In solidarity, Eyesinthefire (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox OS says "'Linux' and 'Mac OS X' are not OS families" Softwareperson1000 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Because the consensus there, in apparently 2007, was to not include Linux as a family. I have no interest in re-litigating this issue there, as I think "Unix-like" is a suitable super-family for the purposes of infoboxen. Consensus here and now is to describe Linux as a family of operating systems in its article. In solidarity, Eyesinthefire (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

This is clearly running in circles. @Softwareperson1000: what would it take for you to drop the stick on this? You clearly haven't been convincing anyone so far. If we were to stage an WP:RFC would you agree to respect the result and walk away, whatever the result might be? MrOllie (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

If you go that route, I strongly advise a pre-RFC discussion about the wording. Far too often we get someone disagreeing with an RfC that goes against them by claiming that the question wasn't worded correctly. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I like to find out in advance what sort of RFC (or indeed if any RFC) is capable of settling a matter. MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

"If we were to stage an WP:RFC would you agree to respect the result and walk away, whatever the result might be?" If the question is simply to leave this particular article alone and go somewhere else then my answer is yes. However there is certain ambiguity in that question, that the separation of the concerns is not communicated clearly, the concern over the infobox (which has already spawned a separate discussion elsewhere), and the relationship to the "GNU family of operating systems" also proposed elsewhere being distinct as concepts from this specific article. I have no objection to Wikipedia operating as it sees fit, I have my views and I have explained my view on this topic, I don't see what would suggest I would not respect the result of such an RfC. I consider my writings here to have been polite and perfectly in line with basic good conduct amongst fellow editors. Obviously my views will not be altered by an RfC, and I reserve the right to comment on my views on related topics elsewhere, but as to will leave this particular article alone should an RfC decide so, of course.

I intent to say the following in as polite a way as possible, "what would it take for you to drop the stick on this?" I find this to unfairly dismiss what I have said, I will remind everyone here that I have on several instances offered compromises only to hear no proper answer, compromises which I must again point out, include Linux as a family. A compromise which I don't see how it harms anyone involved here, as it retains Linux as a family as my opposition wishes it to be, only to not hear even a formal rejection of it, just silence An example. As far as I am concerned I should be asking my opponents, what does it take for you to answer properly to offers for a compromise, and to address the arguments. The question about Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is absolutely relevant if Debian is to be categorized as a "Linux", which I assume it almost certainly would be categorized that way under you system, presumably, that is if you have any system, which I haven't heard any detailed description of at all? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Not this particular article, the whole issue. A lot of the problem is the arguing and back and forth editing across many articles. This is getting disruptive and that needs to end one way or another, and statements like and I reserve the right to comment on my views on related topics elsewhere do not reassure me that the disruption is going to stop. I'm asking you, personally. I'm not interested in hearing about what other people should or should not do. MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify "arguing and back and forth editing across many articles" by this do you mean the various Talk pages across which the related topics are spread out, or what exactly are the many articles? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The only thing that comes to mind of many articles might be this; if looking at my edit history current working link I have edited some numerous distros infoboxes to say Unix-like with Linux kernel in accordance to the guidelines of the OS infobox template. That I did because I was enforcing the correct values defined by the infobox OS template which I was looking into which said that Linux is not a family, and it has stood so in that form for quite very long. This was actually as it turns out brought to my attention by none other than User:Aoidh per self, which actually brings to question this user's standing on this issue. Was there a recent change in views on the matter since supporting Unix-like as the family not too long ago, or why the silence on brining up this past instance of preferring Unix-like as the family, which seems to me to be absolutely relevant to this topic as we have been discussing now here for months? What is the motivation and viewpoint of User:Aoidh exactly? Just a question, not an accusation of any form. But it is very unclear and ambiguous despite the numerous replies of that user has made here to have such an unclear stance on the topic. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Lengthy discussion of Aoidh in response to I'm not interested in hearing about what other people should or should not do. encapsulates the problem nicely. MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I will point out that what I said was perfectly in response to your question about the "many articles" which that was the only thing that I came up with from what you said. I don't know what other many articles there could be, that is an instance of literally many articles and it's related. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I am asking you a simple question, and your failure to answer it is noted. It is apparent that an RFC would not get you to leave this issue alone. MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It was not a simple question. There is a separation of the concerns, and a point you communicated unclearly about the "many articles". And importantly, I already answered to your question, with a caveat "If the question is simply to leave this particular article alone and go somewhere else then my answer is yes", only later did you clarify your question, after I specifically asked about it. It's not such a simple question then after all. You just didn't like the answer I already gave you, before the clarification of the initial question. But now to answer your new revised question; I'll think about it.

Because there are still a lot of unresolved arguments and unanswered questions floating around. The most important thing I say by far to approach a closure for the topic would be, for me, for one a basic answer to the question as to what exactly determines what OS family a system goes into (And that has to make it sure that the criteria is applied universally without any bizarre double standards and exceptions). And second a formal response to the offers for a compromise. Or another solution, just remove the "family" verbiage outright from everywhere, that will permanently close this topic for sure, and then there is no need to continue, I'll agree to that. Also note what I said here, remove OS family entirely. I am perfectly happy to answer to questions, what I will say is that I do not respect this line "I am asking you a simple question, and your failure to answer it is noted." the question was not simple and I am replying to you, the conversation is still going. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It is clear that Softwareperson1000 is not going to stops unless someone takes them to WP:ANI for WP:BLUDGEONING. 32 comments so far, more than three time as many as the next two at 8 and 9. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

1. The thread I started with This is in practice a linear discussion, sure it's long and I have had a lot to say, but I hardly see that as constituting violating any policy, such accusations made against me are total nonsense.

2. What exactly am I supposed to stop? I already said that I would leave this article alone should an RfC decide so. I will also add to that now because it wasn't specified earlier, that I include this topic discussed here on this talk page, in what I said:

If the question is simply to leave this particular article alone and go somewhere else then my answer is yes.

The question was asked "If we were to stage an WP:RFC would you agree to respect the result and walk away, whatever the result might be?"

What would this RfC look like if not that the editors here would reach consensus for the contents of this article? A new RfC: tell Softwareperson1000 to shut up? I'm not going to insist on the same exact topic. I suppose I didn't clearly communicate that I would leave this topic about the Linux family alone, on this Talk page also, so I guess that might be the source of the confusion? Also if I read it differently I could see how "...and go somewhere else..." could be read as me continuing the same topic elsewhere, but that would be a misreading and was not my intention with what I said. It was implied in the way I wrote it that I would not only go somewhere else but also the topic there is of course separate, so I would not just bring the topic there. So to be clear I am not going to insist elsewhere that the Linux article be rewritten somehow elsewhere, and just open the same issue elsewhere right away, if that was the misunderstanding. Otherwise I don't know what this is about with the accusations about violating policy and such affairs.

3. Also despite what was said here, that discussion does not take place in a vacuum and I will point out relevant information as I see fit. The reason I pointed out this is because, User:Aoidh has not once made a statement on this thread outright rejecting "Unix-like" as a family, having opposed "GNU" yes, and supported "linux", but not opposed "Unix-like". This is important because it is relevant information which has to do with the offer for a compromise to which basically everyone here should have been perfectly happy to agree to, but to which no formal answer was once given, the idea originally from User:Guy Harris about having multiple families, which I again repeat Guy Harris here basically already agreed to, but just hasn't yet formally responded to after I requested clarification here. This, all means that there is no such absolute opposition to what I am talking about in the first place "You clearly haven't been convincing anyone so far" - User:MrOllie. This is just figment of your imagination that everyone entirely opposes me on everything I say. As far as I am concerned, Aoidh has never opposed "Unix-like", in fact there is a not too distant past example of siding with it, against Linux, in a specific context. And Guy Harris de-facto agreed to having many families, but just hasn't yet formally responded. And it was the three of us which made most significant participants in that discussion. A discussion in which User:Guy Macon had trouble keeping the statements on topic, who is now here making nonsense accusations against me for sharing my thoughts on a perfectly civil manner on a Talk page. And one MrOllie who did not really participate in that thread, making such statements such as this "I am asking you a simple question, and your failure to answer it is noted. It is apparent that an RFC would not get you to leave this issue alone.", I say these two are the only ones failing behave in an orderly and appropriate manner here. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

correction, replace link at where I said "Also despite what was said here," with this link Talk:Linux#c-MrOllie-20260806181600-Softwareperson1000-20260806180900 Softwareperson1000 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Google books Engrams

From Template talk:Infobox OS #Is the OS family section making false claims?: Google books Engrams:

The engram viewer could not find any uses of "UNIX-like family", "Unix-like family", "UNIX like family", "Unix like family", "UNIXlike family" or "Unixlike family". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Now at ANI

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bludgeoning on Talk Linux

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Attempt to conclude this discussion

The above has become a wall of text that is very difficult to navigate, let's take stock of everyone's view on this please. As for myself, I am opposed to any change to the term "Linux family", and also reject Softwareperson1000's proposal for adding an Efn (Explanatory footnote) on this term. I don't see any need for other changes to the article either. (Edit: The attribution to first sentence needs to be reassessed). While I understand the POV presented I didn't feel that any sufficient explanation along with directly related source material has been provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chattenoir (talk • contribs) 18:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion has become unwieldy due to its size, but see this comment about the source in the lede, though I'm perfectly fine with it being replaced with another source that supports the content. - Aoidh (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

We could also provide the addition citation in the lead also if necessary? But I have updated the existing one with the web link and I see that it does include the quote. Chattenoir (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2026 (UTC)