Talk:Linux/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Translation of Criticism section from French article

Here is my translation of the crticism section of the French article, a section which is missing from this one.

Brad Spengler, developer for grsecurity, has criticised the Linux kernal for favouring functionality over security. He claims Linux Torvalds has said he was not internested in adding security feautres to avoid buffer overflow, since these would slow the loading of applications.

Moreover, he has been scathing over the absence of a person officially in charge of security, with whom one might talk in private over such matters. Failing this, in order to have these concerns addressed, one is obliged to send a group email to a mailing list, in which case the faults will be discovered and perhaps used for malicious ends until a security patch should become available, though most Linux users would be ignorant of such failures.

Finally he has cast doubt over the insertion of the LSM system since version 2.6 of the Linux kernal ; this insertion, he claims, was due to the laxity of programmers and to make easier the insertion of invisible rootkits in the system, to be passed off as modules of security. However, this criticism is dated owing to the modifications to the kernal made since version 2.6.24.

RedRabbit (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Translation of Security section

Just for fun, I took the liberty of also translating the Security section. I hope it should prove useful.

Linux has developed a reputation for security for a number of reasons, which depend on the end to which the system is used.

As a workstation, Linux's security benefits from a strict separation of priviliges, which in practice is not often effected in competing operating systems. As a result, a virus or worm can only reach one part of the resources(?) and functionality in a Linux system, leaving the user's important data, and that of other users, untouched.

By comparison with other public operating systems, Linux, and before it Unix, is propagated firstly among users well-acquianted with their system and informed of the problems in respect of security. The first vulnerabilities were discovered in the Unix system in 1972, as well as the first viruses and worms. Therefore the development of Linux has taken place with a particular eye on security. The number of free, quality software originating from the Linux world bear witness to this fact.

In Linux servers, on the other hand, security is more dependent on the experience of the systems administrator. However, here Linux has a particular advantage thanks to its freedom of use, which allows the system to be tested, without risk or expense, against various scenarios on different computers, so that useful experience might be gained.

There are a series of distributions specifically _targetted at security, and such initiatives as SELinux of the National Security agency have aimed at reaching the highest level possible. On the other hand, anti-security distributions also exist, such as Damn Vulnerable Linux and BackTrack, to enable experts and interested parties to learn about security problems which might afflict operating systems.

Another argument adduced in favour of Linux is the variety of platforms whose hardware is supported, as well as software. A security fault in the popular client email will only inconvience a small fraction of users of free software ; whereas a fault in Outlook Express will, in one stroke, damage a large proportion of Windows users. This thesis was put forth by leading experts in the field on behalf of the CCIA, and reiterated by the company Gartner in its report. [English extract of this report still to be found]

Finally, Linux's source code's being free means that anyone has the opportunity to study it and suggest improvements ; so the private interests of a company or institution, or any individual for that matter, may be met in this educative environment, and vulnerabilities of security expunged. In support of this, an argument is advanced that security failures are fixed more rapidly in a Linux system ; this thesis being alternatively supported and refuted by various studies according to their source of funding.

In addition, the freeness of the software obviates the opportunity for pirating, by way of cracks or though sites such as warez popular among adepts of operating systems, both of which sources of pirating constitute a source of infection for computers.

Still, Linux is not entirely invulnerable to problems of security, as was seen in September of 2002, when the worm Slapper, the first of its kind, infected a number of Linux computers, mostly web serbers running Apache (6000 at its peak).

Indeed Linux has been considered under threat after nearly 4900 vulnerabilities were uncovered between 2003 and 2008, the number being spread among the different distributions available. These failures, for the most part, were rapidly corrected, though some are thought to remain.

However that may be, the number of failures discovered during that period is not considered a reliable measure of the system's security, for it still remains to be determined

• their impact on the system
• the times in which the system is vulnerable

And there it is. RedRabbit (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Security section

I've added a Security section to the article, based on my above translation of the French text of the same, since that section was conspicously lacking. There are six references used in the original text, only two of which are in English. And I am happy to add all these should anyone want them. I'd also like to add a Criticism section based on my above translation, if no one should object.

Here is the original text for the section if anyone should be interested in vetting my translation.

Cheers. RedRabbit (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Community Reassessment

The GA Reassessment page can be found here. Aaron north (T/C) 17:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A Variety of user Interfaces

This bit was removed by user Yworo as `detail not needed in this article, spammy and promotional', the logic of which escapes me. In an section titled 'User interface`, under what Wikipedia posting guidelines is a mention of LXDE deemed not relevant?

"a variety of additional user interfaces exist such as LXDE. The main differences being a less cluttered interface and the amount of system resources they consume" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viralmeme (talk • contribs) 11:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of different interfaces and no reason was given for favouring this particular one over any other. --Simple Bob (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Distrowatch and the Economist

I think using the The Economist article Technology in 2008 as reference for "Popular consumer distributions of linux include Ubuntu, and openSUSE." is not a good idea. Distrowatch may in general be a much less reliable source than the Economist, but the article does not discuss whether some specific Linux distributions are popular or not (in fact it does not say that SUSE is popular), while Distrowatch should have a good grasp about the distributions. What main distributions we mention is more or less arbitrary, but if we want a reference, let us choose one explicitly making the choice. --LPfi (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Then find a better source, if you can. Distrowatch does not qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia. We need a media article. Yworo (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Both points are valid. The Distrowatch table is not really a source for reliability (see here for a fair analysis of why.) But equally it is inappropriate to cite something to a source which does not really discuss linux in any great depth and only mentions a few distributions in passing as examples of linux distributions and then use that to say "Popular distributions include X". Some linux distributions do clearly merit a mention in the lead, and it is fairly uncontroversial, though difficult to "prove" that Ubuntu is the most popular linux distribution. But I suspect a reliable, uptodate comparison of the popularity of linux distributions will be impossible to find. Really, what distributions we call "popular" is a subjective statement for the editors of the article to decide, and not something we should take from a sources assertion of popularity (unless there is a very good one). We should therefore try to come up with a - "popular linux distributions include X,Y,Z" and reach a consensus here as to what they should be (Bearing in mind we don't want this to become another entry on WP:LAME:D). Ajbpearce (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I did not use the Distrowatch table, but a Distrowatch article, and it seemed reasonable in its choices, but you are right that we can do the editorial choice ourselves. --LPfi (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

$1.38 billion is $2011?

What is this nonsense in the Copyright and naming section supposed to mean?:

"... it would have cost about $1.38 billion (2011 US dollars) to develop in the United States." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diblidabliduu (talk • contribs) 19:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It means that in 2001 the cost of developing Red hat Linux in the United States by a closed-source proprietary model was estimated to have been the equivalent of 1.38 billion US dollars at the dollar's value in 2011.

CrossOver

"CrossOver is a proprietary solution based on the open source Wine project that supports running Windows versions of Microsoft Office, Intuit applications such as Quicken and QuickBooks, Adobe Photoshop versions through CS2, and many popular games such as World of Warcraft and Team Fortress 2."

My initial reaction is "Ack, promotional." Team Fortress 2 and World of Warcraft run on WINE. In fact they're on its top 10 platinum list: http://appdb.winehq.org/. Is this supposed to be a list of applications that CrossOver runs better than WINE? —Darxus (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Crossover Office is WINE. The difference is that it is sold for money, that it comes nicely packaged, that a reliable version is chosen and that the customer is given some kind of warranty about what works. By chosing the right version of WINE you'd get exactly the same functionality. Am I mistaken? --LPfi (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Protection

Why are the articles on Windows and Mac OSX protected and not this one? Is Linux less important than the two? I don't think so. 86.139.192.39 (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection is temporary and has to do with recent vandalism. Has there been a lot of recent vandalism on this article which is expected to continue unless the article is protected? I don't think there has been, thus there is no reason to protect this article. The articles on Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X are protected due to a persistent vandal, who is apparently not interested in vandalizing Linux articles. Yworo (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Linux can be installed or made with Linux on them

"Linux can be installed on a wide variety of computer hardware, ranging from mobile phones, tablet computers and video game consoles, to mainframes and supercomputers." The citations only go to supercomputers, phones, mainframes and watches. What video game consoles are they talking about? Noting Tablet computers running GNU/Linux is not really a need because they are just like normal computers. Are any tablets shipped with GNU/Linux on them? Knowing that would be more note worthy.

Saying what GNU/Linux comes on seems like a better opening paragraph. --Catagris (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Linux can be installed Sony PlayStation3, at least on PS3 with old firmware. There are plenty of tablets with Linux, search for "Android tablet" and you'll see. However we should not list those here (Wikipedia is not a list) man with one red shoe 19:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Also runs on Xbox: http://www.xbox-linux.org/. And I think it's useful to mention that linux runs on such a wide variety of platforms. Linux's use has never really been tied to what hardware it ships with. —Darxus (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

PS2 too, with a few modifications. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Politux, shame on you!

Restart the discussion on naming/referring. For every true user that says we want GNU/Linux, there's a 1/2 thug that says no. The debate here was wrongly judged. Every dominant site on this topic has large traces of GNU/Linux and yet we have people who are determined to interfere with articles which dedicate themselves to distributions that focus especially on GNU/Linux. Don't believe me? It's called the amazing Google search engine which you people do not care to use. I think GNU needs to be paid more homage. Conduct your own research, but realize the very problem. What the heck do you mean by "Linux".

"GNU/Linux distribution" About 23,200,000 results (0.09 seconds) "GNU/Linux distribution" -"linux kernel" About 6,620,000 results (0.07 seconds)

"GNU/Linux distro" About 3,080,000 results (0.33 seconds) "GNU/Linux distro" -"linux kernel" About 2,180,000 results (0.06 seconds)

"GNU/Linux OS" About 4,070,000 results (0.07 seconds) "GNU/Linux OS" -"Linux kernel" About 2,970,000 results (0.32 seconds)

"GNU/Linux operating system" About 320,000 results (0.19 seconds) "GNU/Linux operating system" -"Linux kernel" About 372,000 results (0.25 seconds)

23,200,000+6,620,000+3,080,000+4,070,000+2,970,000+320,000+372,000 = 40,632,000 hits

"Linux distribution" About 1,060,000 results (0.06 seconds) "Linux distribution" -"linux kernel" About 8,370,000 results (0.17 seconds)

"Linux distro" About 561,000 results (0.16 seconds) "Linux distro" -"Linux kernel" About 4,250,000 results (0.05 seconds)

"Linux OS" About 9,670,000 results (0.26 seconds) "Linux OS" -"Linux kernel" About 13,000,000 results (0.21 seconds)

"Linux operating system" About 1,040,000 results (0.16 seconds) "Linux operating system" -"Linux kernel" About 8,690,000 results (0.23 seconds)

1,060,000+8,370,000+4,250,000+561,000+4,250,000+13,000,000+1,040,000 = 32,531,000 hits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwidowhex (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions on either side, but I think the most official name should be used. Things that favor simply "Linux" are that it's the kernel's original name, and the fact that FSF requests Linux to be called GNU/Linux only in systems that are GNU variants (to be honest, their definition would encompass almost all Linux systems). However, no matter how big player FSF is in the open source community, they have no right to decide about the kernel's name. They can make suggestions and such, but can't really enforce them. I checked every single major distribution I could remember to see which name they used: out of Gentoo, Arch Linux, Debian, Ubuntu, openSUSE, Mandriva, Fedora, Linux Mint and Linux From Scratch, only Debian used GNU/Linux instead of Linux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.68.15.66 (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your perspective fails to make coherent sense. Since this is really an important administration decision, if you actually want to make a contribution, sign in.

Also, your Google hits appear dead wrong to me. I'm trying to assume good faith but please don't make it hard for me. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh poor you. This assume good faith matter seems to fail on Wikipedia. If I was told correctly the documents that have made a decision on this topic are Talk:Linux/Name and Talk:Linux/Referring_to_this_article. Does anyone actually see any AGF on those pages? I would like to see how those who are opposition have AGF. I've really lost my trust when I see people asking for authority on the matter of the name and do not try to have AGF when a potential authority comes around. Discussions like this Talk:List_of_Linux_distributions_endorsed_by_the_Free_Software_Foundation, where people cite Wikipedia:COMMONNAME and yet ignore the other parts of document seems to make me really wonder.~

And almost forgot, see WP:GOOGLE~for information on using search engines in Wikipedia... 212.68.15.66 (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... someone is extremely swift for accountability on this matter. I see both of the referring/name articles do have some people using Google for making their cause. Some people even seem convinced by it.

There is no rule in Wikipedia forbidding anonymous users from voicing their opinion (I'm the same guy from a different IP, so you know). There are rules opposing the editing of other people's posts, though, and although I think you did that accidentally, I suggest you lay off your aggressive attitude so I can be sure. And if you feel so big now that you've got a username, I've been around long enough to know that users with very few and specialized edits (such as yourself) get labeled aggressive soapboxers for far less. Remain calm and make real arguments instead of preaching about the truth and being impolite and aggressive (just look at the title of this section and whether it sounds nice). On the naming discussion I saw very good reasoning to stick with Linux only - the truth is, there is no official reason to call it GNU/Linux, and, despite your Google hits which I take are falsified since you didn't explain why they don't come even close with the ones I get, most distributions and vendors use the name of the kernel, Linux. My opinion is that Linux is good except, for example, when discussing Debian which explicitly states itself to be a GNU/Linux distribution. And one more "argument", here are a few example results from a small, non-scientific but reasonably accurate applet that uses Google... Just the name and with the word "distribution", and both the former and latter in quotes. 88.112.51.212 (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're funny. Blackwidowhex (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem with that. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Linux" ├ "GNU/Linux" → google search -- more linux hits. immeëmosol (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm no Google expert, could you post a link to the search result page for clarity? Or don't mind, search results shouldn't be considered proper arguments in any case. It has been decided that Linux is used for the name of the operating system, because it is by far more widely used by vendors, users and distribution maintainers alike, and the alternative naming GNU/Linux is covered as well in the article. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This important article needs extensive correction.

Just visiting and noted many technical inaccuracies.

The Linux article Minix section conflicts with the Wicki Minix article. Letters (diatribe) between Torvalds and Tannenbaum ( http://www.dina.dk/~abraham/Linus_vs_Tanenbaum.html ) indicate that the only influence Minix had on Linus was the concept of writing a unix clone and use of non-copyrighted file system. When you read the arguments in their conversation you would see fundamental differences in the respective operating system design goals. Linus has said he did not start with Minix. Considering early Linux had the same bugs as Unix v6 it seems Linus reverse engineered from Lions' Commentary ( http://openlibrary.org/books/OL17002646M/Lions%27_Commentary_on_UNIX_6th_edition_with_source_code ). The book was available in 1976 but AT&T declared this book illegal in 1979 because it contained UNIX Source Code. However this book was widely copied and I obtained a copy while taking computer coursework in 1985.

Get rid of the 220px-Unix_history.svg.png picture. It is grossly inaccurate and better distribution history diagrams exist. SunOS was BSD derived and contains a Berkely license, Solaris was System V derived after licensing from AT&T. It does not address the significant differences between Unix v6/v7 and Unix System V (especially regarding Posix compliance); Lawsuit by AT&T against University of California (Berkely) resulting in removal of ATT code and resulting in BSD 4.4 Lite which is the acknowledged (by Apple) parent of the OS X kernel). NextStep was a Unix Desktop/Windowing System (like X.org/Gnome or Xfree86/KDE) and has no place in this diagram of kernel histories. Shjacks45 (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So correct it. —Darxus (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, be bold and do it! 212.68.15.66 (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

History?

For a history section, it is conspicuously lacking in dates. The dates it does have all are related to other OSs. --J Clear (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Minecraft is written in Java, so it doesn't need wine to run on Linux

The desktop section mentions that Linux can run MS-Windows software compatible with Wine and Crossover, and mentions a few programs and games that can be run this way. And while it is true that Team Fortress 2 and World of Warcraft need some kind of emulation layer to run, Minecraft just needs the Java virtual machine, like on windows. Using Wine to emulate a Windows-based JVM to run Minecraft is not only contrived, but will result in poor performance compared to running Minecraft natively on Linux. I'm going to change this section simply by removing the reference to Minecraft. Maybe a "Gaming" section can be added, although Windows is generally the best choice for gaming, Linux is becoming a powerful gaming platform, especially with indie game development being rather Linux friendly, so maybe a quick section describing the gaming capabilities of Linux? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.20.236.244 (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, gaming is too small and insignificant of a topic to be included into the primary article. Leave games to the Winblows camp who couldn't care for anything else. Unix and Unix-like is a business platform first of all, not a platform for entertainment, so let's not ruin this proud and respectable image with games. 46.73.23.209 (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How is gaming "too small and insignificant of a topic" to be included? Your comment was out of place on wikipedia as the article is not based around your misplaced elitism. Gaming is a perfectly acceptable topic on a Linux article as it is often used as a home system by many people, not always as a business platform. Please leave your biased agender out of wikipedia. Start an opinion blog to voice your view if you wish, this is not the place! You claim it is "not a platform for entertainment" but surely its a platform for whatever the user wants it to be? The worst part of a small(?) section of the linux crowd, as well as the apple and windows crowd, is the silly little digs and attacks on other peoples choices due to fanboism. It's just the system you prefer that meets your needs or wants.

If information about games fits here, which I think it does, then it can be included. It may not have to be a full section but I've seen official releases of full games in commercial games shops as dedicated linux versions. Danno81 (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Will the consensus be ever reconsidered ?

its been 3 years already so will this be given another fair chance for reaching a consensus ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaukikyo (talk • contribs) 14:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a consensus. It's just not a consensus that certain parties like. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"Linux" operating system does not have version numbers

"Linux" operating system does not have version numbers . the numbers are for the kernel . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaukikyo (talk • contribs) 08:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And they are flagged as such. If we simply removed anything kernel-specific then we wouldn't have much of an infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Linux 3.0

There is no mention on Linux 3.0 except for a link to the unstable version in the infobox.

Given that Linux 3.0 is a new major version and it is in release candidate status we should mention it, but I'm not sure how to work it into the article. --Frank Lofaro Jr. (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Linus said that anything exceptional about 3.0 is the number and we can add info when is released, there's no need to add info in an Encyclopedia about release candidates. man with one red shoe 21:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The official site should not be kernel.org

if you are talking about the operating system then kernel.org is not the homepage . there is no official site for the "linux" operating system . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaukikyo (talk • contribs) 07:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite. This was added last April with a summary saying "revert this edit if there is any controversy relating to the website parameter for this infobox": I think it's fair to say that this is controversial. :) I've removed it. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there are websites for different components and for different packaging companies, but there is no one official site for Linux distribution or OS. man with one red shoe 20:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

By the same argument, the infobox should not list the kernel version as the "version", nor should it list "assembly, C". We already list "various" under the licenses; it makes more sense to have "various" (or similar) for version and "various" for languages. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure its the same. When speaking of Linux as a whole, Linux's version number is typically defined by the kernel version. Linux 2.6 refers to the kernel number, and Linux 3.0 is the "upcoming Linux" as per common usage (an example). - SudoGhost™ 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The example you linked is obviously talking specifically about the kernel. If you are talking about the system as a whole (i.e. including userland), you are usually talking about a distro, in which case you use the distro version number. Hence "various" or similar is the only sensible thing to list for "version". — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree there should be no version for the OS. man with one red shoe 04:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the version numbers with a link to distributions and kernel.

We should not add to the confusion by having version numbers here. All too common at the help desk: "what distribution, what version?" - "Redhat 2.6.18" or "Linux 10.0".

--LPfi (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If we're really splitting hairs, then "user interface" need to be "various" as well, because the vast majority of current Linux distributions in the wild use neither a CLI nor X: they either run a Web server or just throw up a framebuffer. I've made some additional changes to make this more generic. At the same time, I can't help that by making this more generic we're making it less useful, but I suppose the only long-term solution for that is to have a real (as in reasonably high-quality_ set of dedicated articles for Linux on the desktop, Linux on servers and Linux on embedded systems or the like. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that there is an offical site, but the best site I know, is both http://distrowatch.com/ and http://OSnews.com. I agree that we need a set of dedicated articles, including Linux hacked on portable devices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.117.96 (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)