Talk:Alpine Linux

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Linux Low‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Alpine Linux and Docker

I think it should be interesting to put some sentences presenting how popular Alpine Linux became for Docker users. I think Alpine should be at position 2 or 3 in a Linux distribution popularity sort for a base image on Docker Hub. (I'd say Debian 1st, Alpine 2nd or 3rd, Ubuntu 2nd or 3rd, quality sources are welcome if you have on this topic) It's obviously not the same trend for Linux users outside the "Docker World".

MarquantOne (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It even affects the users outside the "Docker World" Going by the IRC channel size, the user base of Alpine has increased tenfold due to Docker users + systemd expatriates.

I didn't add the Docker part because I already added a lot of other bits. Maybe it should simply be virtualization (KVM+Xen) / containers (LXC, LXD, Docker), saying that almost anything is well-supported, and for Docker has seen extreme adoption. Virtualbox host support _isn't there_ AFAIK which should also be mentioned, if someone can double check it. (Due to size, and simply how "clean" the base is, allowing for low-effort integration).

2001:A61:3433:C300:6DC4:6387:2410:D273 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

The page has been tagged as it reads as advertising for the distribution: it lists claimed features as factual and also does not contrast them with any dubious aspect or criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.40.10 (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Adding appropriate template/tags to an especially egregious example. Marcusmueller ettus (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Adélie Linux

Hi there, I'm the project founder and lead of Adélie Linux so obviously I cannot directly edit these pages. However, I don't understand the redirect from Adélie Linux to Alpine Linux. We are only very tangentially related to Alpine; we both use musl for a libc and the same package manager. Other than the package manager, we share absolutely no code with Alpine.^[1] I don't see Ubuntu redirecting to Debian any time soon, so please either delete the redirect entirely or create a page about Adélie specifically. Since we are not yet notable (I'm unaware of any secondary sources beyond forums), and this page doesn't actually contain any information about us (the words "Adélie" and "Adelie" never appear), I'd actually recommend a deletion, citing WP:RDR §8.1 #10. --AndreniW (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "About the Adélie Linux system". Adélie Linux. 2018-11-14. Retrieved 2018-11-24. We are not related to the Alpine Linux distribution, though we are using the same APK package manager. We have a focus on POSIX conformance, desktop software, and long-term support that Alpine does not. We are not a 'fork' of Alpine and we have virtually no shared code beyond the package manager.

License

Good catch, Nenolod. I think I might have skimmed https://github.com/pires/alpine-linux-build/blob/master/LICENSE. What should we put in the "license" field? https://alpinelinux.org/about/ gives nothing. https://github.com/alpinelinux/alpine-wiki/blob/master/LICENSE says "alpinelinux/alpine-wiki is licensed under the MIT License". I mean, it must have a license, or likely a combination of them, which can be described, as in Template:Infobox OS#Example. HLHJ (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "About the Adélie Linux system". Adélie Linux. 2018-11-14. Retrieved 2018-11-24. We are not related to the Alpine Linux distribution, though we are using the same APK package manager. We have a focus on POSIX conformance, desktop software, and long-term support that Alpine does not. We are not a 'fork' of Alpine and we have virtually no shared code beyond the package manager.

[1]