Talk:Winux

Update regarding modern Winux distribution and 1.7M+ downloads

I am updating the article to reflect the modern status of the Winux distribution. I am adding verifiable download statistics from SourceForge (1.7M+ downloads) and significant coverage from reputable third-party sources including Windows Central, Linuxiac, BetaNews, Edivaldobrito, Betanews and NotebookCheck. This is necessary to balance the article per WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Thelinuxuser (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Winux Correction of outdated data and integration of high-tier reliable sources

Hi @Gurkubondinn and fellow editors. I noticed my recent contributions were reverted under the "pre-LLM" tag. While I understand the caution regarding AI-generated text, my goal is strictly to fix a massive factual gap in this article. Currently, the page describes "Winux" as a 2004-era software, completely ignoring the modern operating system (formerly Linuxfx/Wubuntu) that has been active since 2007. I would like to propose the integration of the following verified facts to ensure the article meets WP:NPOV and WP:V: Project History: The current Winux is the evolution of the Linuxfx project, led by developer Rafael Rachid since 2007. This is documented in historical Brazilian portals like Viva o Linux (e.g., this 2013 record of the Security Framework). Global Notability: The system has been recently reviewed and recognized by high-tier tech media such as Windows Central (Source), NotebookCheck, and BetaNews. Usage Statistics: The project has reached over 1.7 million downloads and holds an "Open Source Excellence" ranking on SourceForge. I am not a bot; I am a user trying to bring this article into 2026. How can we work together to update these sections? I am happy to provide more sources or adjust the phrasing to meet community standards, but keeping the 2004 version as the "correct" one is factually misleading for readers. Best regards. Thelinuxuser (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Please, do not use LLMs.

the page describes "Winux" as a 2004-era software – where? I see references to Windows 11 and to the year 2025, but the only reference to the 2000s is the Initial release in the infobox. Did you even read the LLM text before you posted it here?

@Gurkubondinn: OP unsuccessfully tried to ping you.

—Janhrach (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Janhrach. Don't think there is much to do here until Thelinuxuser talks to us themselves, I am not interested in spending time on talking to a chatbot. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo. The data submitted for article updates is audited and validated by SourceForge, as you may have seen. It includes articles from historical sources about the system's launch in 2007, links to highly relevant tech websites, and auditable SourceForge links showing over 400,000 downloads per week. In less than two months, the system has already reached over 1.8 million downloads. How can we update this article with the new, real data? If you need the reference links, I can send them all for your audit. (I already sent them in the article itself) 1- Historical website about the system's launch, dating back to 2007, with information about the developer who maintains the system to this day. 2- Modern analyses on relevant websites (WindowsCentral, BetaNews, EdivaldoBrito, Forbes) analyzing the system positively. 3- Sourceforge audit, listing the system as a leader in the operating systems category, with 400k+ downloads per week, more than 1.8M downloads in less than 2 months. 4- Notes from the Windows website's security database, reporting on the project's evolution, security, and compliance when using custom themes and icons. I await analysis and guidance from the editors to improve this system's page. Thank you. ~2026-15897-12 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Janhrach. The Winux operating system page needs to be updated from a neutral perspective. This article is very unbalanced, as the system currently has verifiable and auditable data from important and highly relevant sources. Currently, the system has over 400,000 downloads per week, ranking number 1 on SourceForge among operating systems, as reported by various technology portals worldwide (Forbes, NotebookCheck, WindowsCentral, BetaNews, among many others). The system has received the OpenSource Excellence seal on its SourceForge page. I believe this article is extremely unbalanced and needs to be audited and reevaluated urgently, because in addition to being unfair to the facts, it may violate Wikipedia's guidelines by not presenting a transparent and neutral truth to its users and visitors. I await your data audit for a complete page update. If you need links and sources provided, I will be happy to supply them. Thelinuxuser (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Forbes – Can you please link to the Forbes article about Winux? I can't find any.

SourceForge – Sourceforge is a primary source. This page suggests that these badges are awarded automatically; that means without oversight. Wikipedia's policy about primary sources is restrictive, it e.g. says that you should not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Also, note that exceptional claim[s] requires multiple high-quality sources (WP:EXCEPTIONAL); citing Sourceforge for Sourceforge-related claims is the exact opposite of multiple high-quality sources. If the Sourceforge download count is so exceptional, there should be a secondary source mentioning it. If it isn't exceptional, why bother including it?

I will now proceed to review selected passages from your revision of the article.

developed by **Rafael Wagner Souza da Silva Rachid** (initially credited in early publications as **Rafael Wagner**)

– Is there any reliable, independent source for these statements?

The project originated in January 2007 under the name **Linuxfx**. The development cycle during its first year was documented by the portal BR-Linux.org, noting the release of specialized versions such as "Linuxfx Xtreme Unstable" in May 2007 and "Linuxfx Level 1" in October 2007.

– The source you cited (BR-Linux.org) appears to be a blog, and blogs generally aren't reliable for Wikipedia.

Over nearly two decades, the distribution evolved through several major versions tracked by **DistroWatch**, gaining international prominence for its Windows-like desktop environments

– The international prominence is claim is unsourced promotional original research. Distrowatch covers many distributions, including niche one, so I don't think it merits a mention just because it exists.

In 2024, the project was awarded the **"Open Source Excellence"** badge by SourceForge. By early 2026, the rebranded Winux achieved a cumulative milestone of over **1.8+ million total downloads**, maintaining a consistent #1 ranking in the "Operating Systems" category.

– What I wrote about SourceForge above applies here.

distribution has been analyzed by major technology media for its user interface and performance. Linuxiac noted that Winux mimics the Windows 11 environment while maintaining Linux security standards

– I doubt Linuxiac could be considered a major technology medi[um]. It does not mention anything about Linux security standards. (Is there even anything like that?) This source contains useful information, though.

International outlets like Windows Central and BetaNews have recognized it as a viable solution for hardware that lacks official support for Windows 11.

– I don't know what makes these websites international, but otherwise okay.

Technical performance has also been documented by NotebookCheck, noting that version 11.26.03 arrived with multiple package updates

– Saying that an update included multiple package updates is redundant.

While earlier reports from The Register and ZDNet raised concerns regarding trademarks and security, the developer has implemented significant updates, including replacing Windows-branded assets with original Winux iconography

– Not only The Register and ZDNet, but also the Linuxiax article mentioned trademark concerns. To brush off these concerns like this is non-NPOV. Also, where does Notebookcheck mention replacing Windows assets? Is it in the video?

—Janhrach (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Janhrach@GurkubondinnWhat I am trying to bring to your attention are facts that this distribution dates back to 2007, and has been maintained by the same developers to this day (the br-linux.org source has historical files from December 2007 about the release of the version from that time - Linuxfx Level 1 and Linuxfx Xtreme). As the Forbes archive can confirm, the developer's name was shortened to Rafael Rachid (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2020/07/10/ubuntu-based-linux-os-similar-to-windows-10/). The Linuxfx account registration on SourceForge can also confirm its creation date: (https://sourceforge.net/u/linuxfx/profile/). SourceForge can also confirm that as of today, this system has an incredible 470k+ downloads per week (https://sourceforge.net/projects/windows-linux/). We can also note that this system is at #1 among operating systems by a wide margin in the open-source operating systems category on the SourceForge page (https://sourceforge.net/directory/operating-systems/linux/), having over 1.9M downloads today and almost 1M+ downloads this month alone, which is a great achievement in itself (https://sourceforge.net/projects/windows-linux/files/stats/timeline?dates=2024-10-20%20to%202026-12-01). As I said before, I can gather more information from major portals that have positively reviewed the system, if you wish. All the other articles that are citing incorrect sources about the system are actually using Wikipedia and this ZDNET article as sources. If you open the articles, you'll notice it's become a redundant cycle. However, you can confirm that the system does not use assets from other companies on the Winux changelog page: (https://winuxos.org/news/). I am available to answer any questions. Thelinuxuser (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn@JanhrachI'll take this opportunity to cite articles about this system from other sources considered relevant to the technical community: TomsHardware: (https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/ive-tried-many-linux-distros-designed-to-look-and-feel-like-windows-but-linuxfx-is-the-best-ive-tested-yet). This article provides a detailed positive review of the system when it was still called Linuxfx. The Adrenaline portal has always been considered one of the largest technology portals for enthusiasts in Brazil. It mentions the system during its phase when its codename was known as "Windowsfx": (https://www.adrenaline.com.br/noticias/windowsfx-conheca-o-windows-11-brasileiro-baseado-em-linux/). This Techradar article cites Linuxfx in its specific codenamed version "Windowsfx" very positively, and also serves as a historical record: (https://www.techradar.com/reviews/linuxfx). In this article on LinuxInsider, a niche portal, the editor cites the system as an easy way to transition from Windows to Linux: (https://www.linuxinsider.com/story/linuxfx-10-a-smart-easy-way-to-transition-from-windows-86694.html). Liliputing also has a review of the system: (https://liliputing.com/linuxfx-an-ubuntu-based-operating-system-that-looks-like-windows-10/). The Softpedia portal also has an exclusive review of the system: (https://news.softpedia.com/news/this-linux-os-looks-exactly-like-windows-10-is-bad-news-for-microsoft-530527.shtml). There are also several other sources about the system with neutral analyses and viewpoints that can help balance the Windows page. Thelinuxuser (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. They could be used for rewriting the article. Note that you should follow the instructions at WP:COIER, and shouldn't make the edit by yourself.

Wikipedia's purpose (because it's an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, not an indiscriminate collection of information) is to summarize reliable, independent sources. Non-independent sources could be used sparingly (WP:ABOUTSELF). You should read the sources and write article based on them. You shouldn't write the article based on your first-hand knowledge, and then attempt to add references (WP:BACKWARDS).

No, Wikipedia won't cite Sourceforge for the download count. You admit that it is incredible, which means it needs an extraordinary source, not merely unreviewed statistics (WP:EXTRAORDINARY).

Citing the Sourceforge-account creation date as Winux's creation date would be original research, and that's not permitted on Wikipedia. However, the creation date could probably be cited to Winux's website, per WP:ABOUTSELF, if there's no better source.

However, you can confirm that the system does not use assets from other companies on the Winux changelog page – The article can't rebut several independent sources by a claim cited solely to a non-independent source, which has a material interest in its product's good reputation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not news; wait until independent sources notice the asset change. Moreover, the issue isn't just with the logo (which the changelog mentions), but with assets (theming, wallpaper, icons) is general.

This means that, under WP:BALANCE, the suspected copyright and trademark infringement should be covered prominently, because reliable sources cover it extensively.

ZDNet is in general more well-known than some other sources you suggest citing, so I think its views should be covered. Per, WP:BALANCE, they should only get a brief mention, as other sources consider the OS to be legitimate.

If you dislike the ZDNet article, then ask ZDNet to retract it, or suggest to another reputable website to rebut ZDNet's claims, or ask Winux's developer to sue ZDNet for defamation. But Wikipedia's job is to cover information is reliable sources proportionally, and that includes covering the ZDNet article.

Here are another two mainstream sources: . The former covers the database hacking, so Wikipedia should also mention it.

—Janhrach (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn@JanhrachThank you for your analysis. Based on all this information, you, being experienced, wouldn't you be interested in editing the article to balance the content? I'm still learning how to work with Wikipedia. Regarding the system's creation date, the Linuxfx whois indicates that the domain was created in February 2007 (https://www.whois.com/whois/linuxfx.org), I don't know if this would be useful for balancing this article. Thank you in advance. Thelinuxuser (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, I will see. I have lots of other things to do, both on- and off-wiki. And no, inferring the project's creation date from the domain's creation date is original research. Janhrach (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

In the section about the hacker incident, I noticed that emphasis was placed on a single ZDNet source using the term "scam," while virtually all other analyses and technology portals make no such mention. In fact, it seems the text is somewhat outdated and doesn't reflect what actually happened.

If you search on Google or Bing today, it will become clear that the alleged data leak was a misconfiguration on a web backup server used by the developers, and not a security flaw in the operating system itself. Furthermore, there is an audited study with DOI (10.13140/RG.2.2.14269.52962) that demonstrates that the system architecture does not present the suggested infrastructure vulnerabilities.

Calling a project of this magnitude a "fraud" based on the opinion of a single source, when the technical consensus indicates otherwise, seems quite unfair and contradicts the neutrality that Wikipedia values. The weight is very unbalanced: one source speaks negatively against several others that say the opposite.

I think it would be more correct to adjust the text to make it clear that the failure occurred on the backup server and remove this heavy label of "fraud," which doesn't hold up technically. Would that be a good approach to impartial analysis? Thelinuxuser (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Link do estudo de seguranća: http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14269.52962 Thelinuxuser (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The register "stated" that the project "allegedly" infringes on the copyrights of Microsoft and Canonical? Assume? What's the source? The project has existed for almost 20 years, and we haven't seen any news from either Microsoft or Canonical stating such a thing. A primary source making assumptions based solely on its own beliefs doesn't seem impartial. We need evidence from secondary sources, not assumptions from primary sources that reflect their own opinions. Thelinuxuser (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

In the section about the hacker incident, I noticed that emphasis was placed on a single ZDNet source using the term "scam," – The section about the hacking is currently empty, because I haven't had time to write it.

You are referring to the Reception section. As you see, it currently has 3 cleanup tags, which warn the reader about its incompleteness and POV. I am going to rewrite the section when I have time for it. I have worked on other parts of the article in the meantime. Don't hurry me; I have my own life outside of Wikipedia.

We have already talked about ZDNet, so I don't understand why are you reiterating that again. If you use LLMs, then immediately stop using them.

audited study with DOI – Whether it does or doesn't have DOI is irrelevant. ResearchGate is a social network, not a reviewed publication. Where is the audit?

We need evidence from secondary sources, not assumptions from primary sources that reflect their own opinions. – I will rewrite the section, but I certainly will mention the allegations. Many sources mention them, so leaving them out would violate NPOV. (Writing "Winux infringes copyright" is different from writing "The Register alleged that Winux infringes copyright", and I will use the latter wording.) Whether Microsoft or Canonical took legal action is irrelevant. Yes, the reviews are primary sources, but can you find any reviews (from editorially reviewed publications, not blogs) that aren't primary?

—Janhrach (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

If you use LLMs

I'm pretty sure that they are. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Potential sources

From previous article revisions and above comments.

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2020/07/10/ubuntu-based-linux-os-similar-to-windows-10/
• https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/ive-tried-many-linux-distros-designed-to-look-and-feel-like-windows-but-linuxfx-is-the-best-ive-tested-yet
• https://www.adrenaline.com.br/noticias/windowsfx-conheca-o-windows-11-brasileiro-baseado-em-linux/
• https://www.techradar.com/reviews/linuxfx
• https://liliputing.com/linuxfx-an-ubuntu-based-operating-system-that-looks-like-windows-10/
• https://www.linuxinsider.com/story/linuxfx-10-a-smart-easy-way-to-transition-from-windows-86694.html
• https://news.softpedia.com/news/this-linux-os-looks-exactly-like-windows-10-is-bad-news-for-microsoft-530527.shtml
• https://www.xda-developers.com/winux-linux-distro-looks-feels-windows-11-not-good/
• https://www.theregister.com/2024/12/05/wubuntu/
• https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-i-no-longer-recommend-this-windows-like-linux-distro/
• https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/i-tried-winux-promising-a-windows-11-experience-on-linux
• https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=linuxfx
• https://linuxiac.com/winux-tries-to-mimic-windows-while-staying-fully-linux/
• https://betanews.com/article/rip-windows-10-winux-w10eol-is-the-windows-11-clone-that-runs-on-linux-and-makes-your-old-pc-feel-new-again/
• https://www.notebookcheck.net/Ubuntu-based-Winux-11-26-03-arrives-with-multiple-package-updates.1233534.0.html
• https://techshouts.net/linuxfx-10-a-smart-easy-way-to-migrating-from-windows/
• https://www.vivaolinux.com.br/artigo/Linuxfx-OS-Distribuicao-para-quem-deseja-o-visual-do-Windows-10
• https://techsaa.com/linuxfx-10-a-smart-and-easy-windows-10-alternative/ (struct-out 16:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC); likely unreliable)

Janhrach (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Janhrach The only sources from 2007 that I could find reporting the release of Linuxfx are from November 2007 and December 2007 from br-linux.org, which at that time was the most relevant Linux portal in Brazil. (November: http://br-linux.org/linux/linuxfx-level-1-disponivel-para-download)(December: http://br-linux.org/linux/lancado-o-linuxfx-xtreme-unstable) Thelinuxuser (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

What is the nature of the site? Is it a one-person blog? A forum? Does it have editorial oversight? Janhrach (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@JanhrachBR-Linux.org is one of the oldest and most influential portals in the free software community in Brazil, founded in 1996 by Augusto Campos. The br-linux.org website is still online, but its current status is that of a historical archive. Thelinuxuser (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, which statement should be cited to BR-Linux? The URLs you provided don't even mention that LinuxFX started in 2007. They only say that certain versions got released in 2007. Janhrach (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Janhrach He cites the first version of the Linuxfx Level 1 system: “Já está disponível para o download o Linuxfx level 1 core 9, com muitos recursos interessantes, como instalador automático, Programas atualizados, interface FXGL com Kde 3.5.7"FXGL-Fork" e muito mais os candidatos a experimentar o novo sistema devem acessar www.linuxfx.org e fazer o download da iso de 680MB. OBS: ele é livre pela GPL.”

Enviado por Rafael Wagner (rafaelΘlinuxfx·org) - referência (linuxfx.org).. Thelinuxuser (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Janhrach In this interview with Adrenaline magazine on September 18, 2021, the developer mentions that he has been developing Linuxfx for 14 years (this is a direct interview with the developer).

https://www.adrenaline.com.br/noticias/windowsfx-conheca-o-windows-11-brasileiro-baseado-em-linux/ Thelinuxuser (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Janhrach SempreUpdate magazine is an authority on Linux in Brazil, and also features articles directly addressing developers' opinions on reviews.

https://sempreupdate.com.br/linuxfx-se-posiciona-em-relacao-ao-review/ Thelinuxuser (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

2007 sources:

http://br-linux.org/linux/linuxfx-level-1-disponivel-para-download

http://br-linux.org/linux/lancado-o-linuxfx-xtreme-unstable Thelinuxuser (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Janhrach Complete Analysis of PCWorld (Wubuntu):

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2532994/3-free-linux-distros-that-look-and-feel-like-windows.html Thelinuxuser (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Janhrach I am including additional articles besides the author's interviews that may be relevant to the overall balance of the article:

https://www.softzone.es/linux/distros/linuxfx-windowsfx/

https://pt.linuxadictos.com/windowsfx-windows-10-muito-linuxero.html

https://www.linux.org/threads/winux-11-a-linux-distribution-designed-for-windows-users.58122/

https://windowsfx.softonic.com.br/

https://dtptips.com/linuxfx-wubuntu-the-best-windows-like-linux-alternative-for-2025/

If I feel more sources are needed, I can provide them; however, it's true that if we include more information at this point, this article will become overloaded with data due to such a large number of sources. What do you think? Thelinuxuser (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Here are some more relevant sources that discuss Linuxfx extensively:

https://en.ubunlog.com/windowsfx-linuxfx/

https://en.iguru.gr/linuxfx-10-6-linux-pou-moiazei-akrivos-windows-10/

https://linuxmind.dev/2025/09/04/complete-os-guide-linuxfx-how-it-works-orientation-and-curiosities/

https://elotidesigns.com/linuxfx-10-a-smart-easy-way-to-transition-from-windows-reviews/

https://pocketmags.com/pt/linux-format-magazine/october-2020/articles/826676/linuxfx-10-6?srsltid=AfmBOoo3ntTRIGzxL7yzU4DwVKQNOiFtuoNFOAPykGc8w87gf-xCLTLp

https://www.techradar.com/news/lindows-winlinux-linuxfx-ubuntu-gets-windows-10-look

https://9to5linux.com/linuxfx-10-5-windows-10-clone-arrives-with-cinnamon-4-6-based-on-ubuntu-20-04-lts

https://alternativeto.net/software/linuxfx/

https://fossbytes.com/linuxfx-10-review/

https://x-bit-astro-imaging.blogspot.com/2020/07/windows-windowsfx-linuxfx-winfx-lindows.html

https://windowsforum.com/threads/linuxfx-windows-like-linux-on-ubuntu-24-04-for-painless-windows-10-migration.377615/ Thelinuxuser (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I guess that is enough for citing 2007 as the start date. Forum posts, blogs, and other self-published sources can't generally be used, but you have already provided better sources. There is no need to provide more.

There is no need to use all sources. Using the best ones suffices. The other ones will probably repeat the information that is already covered in the best sources.

Please don't ping me again. I have already watchlisted this page. Generally, you should only ping others when they wouldn't learn of your reply otherwise.

—Janhrach (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Janhrach Wouldn't it be prudent to cite texts from sources that evaluate Linuxfx positively to balance out texts that are only negative reviews of the system in the main section? Looking at it this way, the system seems to have only negative reviews. As we have seen, the database about this system is vast and many articles evaluate it positively:

https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/i-tried-winux-promising-a-windows-11-experience-on-linux

https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/ive-tried-many-linux-distros-designed-to-look-and-feel-like-windows-but-linuxfx-is-the-best-ive-tested-yet

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/linuxfx

etc...

I'm only concerned about the issue of balance, because reading the article, without citing positive counterparts within it, the article has an air of unfairness/unbalance. Thelinuxuser (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the article is very far from from finished. I haven't even started the Reception section. Eventually, the negative content from the lead will be moved there, and positive reviews will be covered.

Again, please don't ping (@mention) me in every comment, okay? Janhrach (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Wubuntu 11.4.3 default desktop - English.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)