Talk:GNU/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

where to get this graphic?

Where can I get this image http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Nuvola_apps_emacs.png on .svg format?

--Licurgo 17:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Audio link

1. GNU (pronounced ) is a free operating system [...]
2. GNU (pronounced /gnu/; ) is a free operating system [...]
3. (pronounced /gnu/) is a free operating system [...]
4. is a free operating system [...] The correct pronunciation of GNU is g'noo (IPA: /gnu/), [...]

1. 1 is what the article currently looks like. #2 is probably what User:Aeusoes1 wanted to do. #3 and #4 are some alternatives. Which do you think would be best? --Kjoonlee 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility is:

1. GNU (pronounced ) is a free operating system [...]

I think there's currently a bit of overlap between Template IPAudio and Template Audio-IPA. We only need one and whichever one it is should not underline IPA. Right now IPAudio has a place in my heart because it doesn't underline. But if Audio-IPA changes accordingly I'll be torn. AEuSoes1 02:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

{{Audio-IPA}} is named so because it's a counterpart to {{Audio}}. Audio-IPA now uses no underlines. --Kjoonlee 17:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the heck is this an ogg file? Anybody whose computer automatically knows what to do with an ogg file already knows how to pronounce "GNU". I think this should be a WAV or similar... 130.15.112.215 15:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)dan

To save space. And no they don't; people who've set up their computers that way have been mislead into thinking it's "guh-new" or "guh-noo". --Kjoonlee 17:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Lisp and history

I think we need to add something to the history section. In a speech of his (but one of several sources I remember), RMS says that he initially was going for a replacement of the Lisp machine OSs, and only grudgingly decided to clone Unix:

“ About three and a half year ago it was clear to me that I should start developing a free software system. I could see two possible kinds of systems to develop: One: A LISP-machine-like system, essentially a system just like the MIT LISP machine system that had just been developed, except free, and running on general purpose hardware, not on special LISP machines. And the other possibility was a more conventional operating system, and it was clear to me that if I made a conventional operating system, I should make it compatible with UNIX, because that would make it easy for people all around to switch to it. After a little while, I concluded I should do the latter and the reason was, that I saw that you can't have something really like the LISP machine system on general purpose hardware.....So the result is then that you need something running underneath the LISP system to you catch these errors, and give the user the ability to keep on running, and debug what happened to him. Finally I concluded that if I was going to have to have a operating system at a lower level, I might as well make a good operating-system--that it was a choice between an operating system and the lisp, or just an operating system; therefore I should do the operating system first, and I should make it compatible with UNIX. ”

This would seem to be important. (Besides, does anyone else think that this idea of eventually layering a Lisp-based OS over something else might be the real motive behind the HURD?) -- Gwern (contribs) 04:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

UNIX vs. Unix

UNIX is written as UNIX.

See Ritchie, D. M., & Thompson, K. (1974). The UNIX time-sharing system [Electronic version]. Communications of the ACM, 17(7), 365-375.

The preceeding is available from the ACM Portal, for-pay, and may be available elsewhere. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 04:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course "UNIX" is written as "UNIX". "Orangutan" is written as "Orangutan", too - it doesn't get us anywhere. You can't use a word to define a word. Anyways, we've already been all through this a few times at Talk:Unix (notice it's "Unix", not "UNIX"):

• Talk:Unix/Archive 1#.22UNIX.22_vs._.22Unix.22
• Talk:Unix/Archive 1#UNICS_vs_UNIX

¦ Reisio 18:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any actual dates on anything, and the only material I see there referenced is newer. It seems that the oldest (and most authoritative, IMHO) spelling is “UNIX”, not “Unix”. Hence, why I made the change. Note that the date on the paper is 1974. Perhaps the argument should be re-opened on the UNIX (err, Unix) page; given that this is an encyclopedia, it should use the most proper form of any noun it contains; The Jargon File and other sources certainly were written by people who were not the creators of the UNIX system, nor The Open Group. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 02:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is of course your right to bring it up again, but I don't think you'll change anything. According to Ritchie and Kernighan, Kernighan coined the name. Kernighan says it was originally "Unics", a 'weak pun' on "Multics", and that eventually the 'cs' became an 'x' (a happening which no-one seems to remember specifically). As far as I know, Multics was (and is) most often formatted as "Multics" (at least when all the text wasn't all caps), which makes it seem logical to me that a pun, "Unics", would also be formed mostly of lowercase letters. It then again makes sense that any immediate corruption of this word, such as becoming "Unix", would retain the lowercase letters. On top of that you have Ritchie quoted as saying that it was "Unix" until a paper in 1974 when they typeset it as "UNIX" in smallcaps and Bell never went back. ¦ Reisio 16:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge GNU Project here?

There is a proposal to merge GNU Project into this article. Please discuss it at Talk:GNU_Project#Merge_into_GNU. Lentower 19:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Staff_and_employees_of_the_Free_Software_Foundation

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Staff_and_employees_of_the_Free_Software_Foundation.

This new article started as a section in the FSF article, and was split off with no rationale, discussion, or consensus by User:Chealer (talk|contribs) .

The editors of this GNU article could have good points to make on this AfD. Lentower 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Quality article

The verbal quality and depth of this article, as well as copyright status of images are all really good, and I feel if it were slightly better cited, it could probably get to Good Article status really easily. Any thoughts? i kan reed 18:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This article needs many more in-line citations. Lentower 22:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article instead?

Instead, why not get it up to Featured Article status? Lentower 22:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed :) A long way to go though, way too much duplication and little consistency in style (until now there wasn't even a mention of the FSF in the intro for instance). Chris Cunningham 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

GNU was founded by Richard Stallman and was the original focus of the Free Software Foundation

Thumperward:

With all due respect, your edits contain false information.

Where did you get your information? Are there other Wikipedia articles that have the wrong information?

Why don't you check out the facts, before you undo my edits? Or check out this article's History section, as my edit summary noted? Or check other Wikipeida articles, fsf.org, the WWW, etc. for the facts? Which are:

• The FSF was founded two years after Richard Stallman started the GNU Project and created the concept of the GNU operating system. Chase down the citations in the History section, etc.
• GNU was the main focus of the FSF for a while, but for more then a decade it's major focus has been furthering the cause of Free Software, of which GNU has become a very small part. The FSF is putting most of it's effort and budget into further the rights of computer uses, not producing software. Check out fsf.org, especially the press releases for the last decade, etc.

Best, Lentower 05:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. (This is what I get for editing during the holiday season). My main focus was to keep the article flowing well, I wasn't paying sufficient attention to factual accuracy. The current version is markedly better. Chris Cunningham 17:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I mostly wanted to get the facts right again, and make sure there weren't fixes needed to other WP articles. I haven't finished reviewing all of your changes yet. Lentower 01:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Hurd and why microkernel?

Is it clear why HURD is the kernel of the GNU OS, and not for example Linux? Who has made the decision, when, and on what grounds? Is it a political or a technical decision? Is HURD choosen because it is a microkernel system? Aren't there other microkernel systems which are more functional than HURD, and that are licenced under the GPL? I think it would be good if the decision making could be clarified on either the GNU page or on the GNU Project page. --HelgeStenstrom 12:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard Stallman made the decision. The reason is that they were working on the HURD before development of Linux started, so Richard decided not to cancel the HURD project. A microkernel design was chosen because it looked like it would be easier to debug (due to being mostly user-space) and because Richard found half of a microkernel that GNU could use (mach) so it looked like half the job was done already. I think these questions are answered in greater length in the GNU/Linux FAQ. Gronky 12:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Some issues that are worth mention besides "Stallman said so", include:

• A wholly unique and separately written kernel avoids being encumbured by copyright and patent enforcement that occurred with early free versions of BSD[1] and is now occurring with Linux.
• Besides debugging, there are a whole host of technical features that make microkernels worthwhile.[2]* A microkernel design, as Mach and the Hurd provide it, give greater freedom to users of the system by allowing them to do more system level tasks in normal user space, like mounting their own file systems or running their own instances of servers. As Marcus Brinkmann noted in a GNU Hurd talk "But even on [most systems] consisting only of free software, you can not easily use the filesystem format, network protocol or binary format you want without special privileges. In traditional unix systems, user freedom is severly restricted by the system administrator."[3]

These could be incorporated here or at GNU Hurd. --75.69.87.211 16:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Since they made the decision 20 years ago, I'd say they simply had no other choice than writing their own. I actually recall seeing it somewhere, so I searched around and found this: The Hurd and Linux. 80.233.255.7

When they saw hurd failing and linux taking off they could have accepted linux as the official kernel for gnu, it seems they didn't mainly for political and philosophical reasons. Plugwash 00:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Linux was an unportable, very i386-oriented kernel at the time, so initially it might have been a technical decision. But politics and philosophy probably played their parts as well. Can't blame them, though. Without these two they could've just kept using proprietary software. 80.233.255.7 02:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To say this another way, wthout the politics and the philosophy, there be little FOSS software. No Linux, No GCC, No FOSS versions of BSD and Unix. No ................ Freedom comes with it's own costs. Lentower 06:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is sort of going off on a tangent but I don't really think that's completely true. FOSS has practical benefits that go beyond abstract notions of freedom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.30.221.68 (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Is it complete or not?

Hi, I was just passing through and I noticed that the opening paragraph of this article says that "GNU ... is a complete computer operating system", but then in paragraph 3 it says "a complete GNU system has not yet been released. The official kernel is the GNU Hurd. However, Hurd is not yet finished". There seems to be some sort of contradiction here. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes that looked odd to me, too, but in a simpler way: 'complete' is superfluous and/or irrelevant. ¦ Reisio

I'll go ahead and fix that then. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My bad on this one I think. It's important to note that completeness is a very important factor in the original project goals, although now that a completely free software OS is a possibility without having to go to GNU for everything this has gotten somewhat muddy. Chris Cunningham 12:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The GNU project's mission of making a complete free software OS exist was completed in 1992. It was originally thought that making a complete OS exist would entail writing a complete OS, so it was expected that the OS and the mission were pretty much the same thing and would be completed together. When the mission was completed by a chance third-party project in 1992, the GNU OS was still not completed. I'll check the article to see if anything needs fixing, but I wanted to explain this here first. Gronky 16:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes complete sense as a mission statement, but there where it was said sounded awkward even if it were true. -- AdrianTM 16:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

pronounce?

Guh-New or New? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.251.155 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Neither. It's hard g followed by "noo". -- parasti ^(talk) 00:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I added text based pronunciation (guh-noo), if you plan to remove it please consider that not all people can hear the verbal pronunciation. 75.15.234.217 16:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

GNU is pronounced that there is only one syllable. -- mms 17:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”; it is pronounced guh-noo, like canoe." [4] 75.15.234.217 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, here's a link where RMS describes how GNU is to be pronounced: http://fsfeurope.org/documents/rms-fs-2006-03-09.en.html#the-name-gnu (just after the 49:21 timestamp). He says it's not like "noo". Gronky 03:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please visit Google Videos and watch any speech given by Richard Stallman. (There are a couple of short ones.) Regardless of what any written document might say, it is in fact one syllable as mms above points out. (By the way, I'm not trying to suggest that it be pronounced "noo"; I don't think anyone is.) 80.233.255.7 03:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange. I've listened to tens of speeches by him. Maybe we're using different descriptions of the same thing. I'd describe his pronunciation as being two-syllable, and being like "canoe". Do you regard "canoe" as being single syllable? Or are you saying that his pronunciation of GNU is not similar to "canoe"? Gronky 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No and yes. Unlike "g" in "gnu", a vowel follows after "c" in "canoe", hence two syllables. For comparison, look at a simple way to pronounce "lambda" that is sometimes suggested. It's "lam-duh". "Duh" here stands for "da". From there, "guh-noo" suggests that "g" in "gnu" be pronounced in a similar way, but this is not the case, according to how Richard Stallman himself pronounces it. 80.233.255.7 16:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. So we here him differently. When I hear him saying "GNU", it sounds like "canoe" (in terms of syllables). BTW, whether a vowel follows the g or the c is irrelevent. If the spelling of "canoe" was changed to "cnoe", the pronunciation or number of syllables wouldn't necessarily change. Gronky 16:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference is completely irrelevant in English anyway. "cnoo" and "canoe" would be phononyms in most accents. Chris Cunningham 16:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it's irrelevant, I was just describing the logic behind my reasoning. In any way, "gnu" does not sound like "canoe" to me. 80.233.255.7 16:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nor it does to me, besides I would say canoo and cnoo differently, but English is not my first language... guh-noo strikes me as incorrect though from my rudimentary knowledge of phonetics. -- AdrianTM 18:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker either. In fact, I think that's exactly why the difference in pronunciations of "canoe" and "gnu" seems obvious to me. 80.233.255.7 14:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

RMS says it's /gnu/. Link: Talk:GNU/Archive 1#Pronunciation --Kjoonlee 04:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

GNU doesn't sound like canoe (I always pronounced as one syllable like "new"), but if the official website suggests it then thats how they want it to pronounced, you say pah-tate-toe, i say poh-tate-toe :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ismellbeans (talk • contribs) 01:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm one of the people who have been deleting mentions of "guh-noo," based on RMS's comments. My rationale is thus.

• Arguments for IPA /gnu/:
  • Ad-hoc pronunciation guides are generally problematic, because there's always a chance of confusion ("/gəˈnju/")
  • RMS favours /gnu/, not /gəˈnu/

However, if I think hard enough I can't can think of several arguments against it.

• Arguments against IPA /gnu/:
  • The WP:NOR, WP:REF, and WP:V policies rule against including comments from message boards or talk pages, and we can't include info that hasn't appeared somewhere else before
  • Published sources mention guh-noo (*used to mention "new with a hard g" or "guh-new")

What should we do? I'm tempted to invoke WP:IAR, but I'm afraid that might not be very nice. --Kjoonlee 11:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we split the difference? The text should contain both versions, indicating that gnu.org says "it is pronounced guh-noo" and Stallman (according to others here) prefers "noo" --Nshewmaker 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, we can't. :( If we were to show both versions, we will have to show a source for /gnu/, but we won't be able to provide reliable sources, so we can only mention /gnu/... --Kjoonlee 17:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

UNIX popular OS?

"At the time, Unix was (and is) a popular operating system"

• First of all I don't know what you mean by UNIX being popular, Solaris and BSD are not considered quite "popular", and I'm not sure if Mac can be considered pure "UNIX" (and it's debatable if it can be considered "popular" either), to me this sounds like POV pushing.

• Second issue, I don't like the "At the time, UNIX was (and is)", if you decide that's true it's a popular OS then use "UNIX is a popular OS" not "at the time was (and is)" which sounds unnecessarily complicated. -- AdrianTM 19:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Alter the wording if you wish. Flavours of UNIX are still probably the most popular proprietary OSs after Microsoft. Running on enterprise servers, UNIX holds a considerable share of the market. The wording before I made the change suggests the UNIX has suffered the same fate as CP/M. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW What makes you think that UNIX was more popular in 1983 than it is now? I suspect that if the article is going to designate the OS as popular in 1983, then it is still popular now because there are, I suspect, far more copies of UNIX running today than there were in 1983. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I use Opera, there are other couple of millions of Opera users probably more than the no. of users 5 years ago, however that doesn't make it "popular". I didn't find recent numbers but in 2000 it looks like 15% of servers were UNIX servers. I would only assume that the procentage was bigger in the past since they didn't have competition from Windows and Linux server (at least not in 1983). I think it makes sense to say "at the time, was a popular OS" because it was more popular than now. However, this is not a big issue, I'll let other people see the discussion and decide how this small issue should be decided. -- AdrianTM 00:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition time. Would "Unix-like" be a useful term? In that case, unix-like operating systems are quite popular at this point in time. Especially counting embedded systems. --Kim Bruning 12:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is that GNU is Unix-like and this could become a circular argument it is after all GNU not UNIX. It really depends if one believes UNIX to be a set of copyrighted code or an implementation of a methodology. Personally I'd go with the second. all lowercase because the shift key takes more effort, short names to save typing (very useful on very slow connections), multi user very useful when playing games, or in the words of the the early 80's email rpdup "Unix is a lot more complicated of course -- the typical Unix hacker never can remember what the PRINT command is called this week -- but when it gets right down to it, Unix is a glorified video game." --Philip Baird Shearer 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think some people conspired to redefine unix, since the popularity of gnu/linux. ;-) --Kim Bruning 18:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

GNU is a POSIX system, not a UNIX system. Noahslater 12:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

"The FSF also holds the copyrights for some GNU software packages."

I think this is worth clearing up. The FSF requires either signed copyright assignments or signed copyright waivers for contributions to many important packages. Which packages? As far as I can tell, there are three categories of GNU software: software which the FSF owns, third-party software which is officially sanctioned (the lead says X.org and TeX), and third-party software which is not (Linux kernel). It would be good to clarify exactly which packages. Furthermore, is there a fourth category: official GNU software that the FSF does not own, but that is not third-party software either? To me, this sentence implies that it might exist. If so, what is it? Thanks, Chris Pickett 21:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You're basically right. FSF requires signed copyright assignment papers from contributors to GNU packages. And if you think your employer or school might have some ownership claim to code that you right, FSF asks you to get your employer or school to sign a waiver of ownership claims with regard to whichever specific GNU project you're contributing to. So FSF owns the copyright for GNU software, but there are a handful of exceptions - I only know of two. One is the MULE component of GNU Emacs. This was written by the Japanese government, and they can't assign copyright, so the code was added to Emacs without assignment[5]. The second is GNOME. GNU launched GNOME in 1998, but hundreds of people contributed without assigning copyright. Getting GNOME working was important, and the wave of developers were doing good work, so FSF didn't interfere. AFAIK, GNOME is the only big project that GNU launched but for which it doesn't hold the majority of the copyright (although they hold the copyright for some parts, and other parts say "copyright FSF" even thought no copyright assignment form was actually signed). So "some" is misleading as it implies a much smaller amount than FSF actually hold. It would be more accurate to say: "FSF holds the copyright for almost all GNU software".

Then there's the related but separate issue of what is and what isn't an official part of the GNU OS. GNU OS is a collection of existing software and software written by the GNU project. X.org and TeX are two large existing pieces of software that GNU incorporated. Linux kernel is not part of GNU at all, but the main way that people use GNU is in combination with the Linux kernel - so most GNU users use a Linux-based variant of FSF's GNU OS. Gronky 01:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So how about: "The FSF holds the copyright for all GNU software. Contributors to GNU software must sign copyright assignment forms, which employers and educational institutions must sign as well. The only exceptions are the GNOME project and the MULE component of GNU Emacs. The FSF claims it requires this assignment to defend itself properly in the event of a lawsuit, and to make strategic licensing decisions." I think that clears up how and why the FSF holds all the copyright. If there are other exceptions, someone will fix this sentence; if it says "almost all", it's still kind of vague. (Also, GNOME is a huge undertaking, so that needs to be mentioned.)

btw, I see you've basically done this part now, but maybe the motivation for the assignment should be explained? Chris Pickett 19:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done this now. I've also moved the bit about copyright assignment from the History section into the section about licences, and have made that a section about "Copyright, licences, and stewardship". It looks like all that information should go together. Gronky 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the existing/written-by issue, I think explicitly listing the pieces of existing software that the GNU project did not write that are officially part of the GNU OS would be useful; if we can't find this information anywhere then I think the text needs clarification somehow; if it just includes all software components that GNU is not directly responsible for, it should say that instead. (Note that since GNU is directly responsible for the kernel, this excludes Linux.) Cheers, Chris Pickett 19:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In the development section I've made two subsections, one about the third-party components, and one about Linux, Hurd, and the role of kernels. Gronky 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the FSF doesn't "own" software. From Gronky's response, "holds copyright" is what you really mean. 80.233.255.7 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Holding copyright is generally equated with "ownership" of that aspect of the "intellectual property", but sure, "holds copyright" is a clearer term and I also prefer it: "own" has serious potential to confuse, witness, "I own a copy of Windows XP!" --- no you don't! Chris Pickett 08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think "own" is the correct term in this case, for example Microsoft owns Windows XP and grants use rights to people who buy a license. You don't own Windows XP, you own a usage license and the rights that license grants you (nothing more, nothing less) -- AdrianTM 14:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think people can "own" licenses. I think people own *copies* of Microsoft Windows, just like you own a copy of a book. However, Microsoft and other propprietary software companies have a copyright and license that is a lot more restrictive (and sold as a commodity), thus the reason you're inclined to consider the license the thing you own, but it's really not. Bulk licensing for example gives one the right to own (and use) multiple copies of the software.

In conclusion, if Microsoft owns anything, it owns the temporary rights granted by copyright, patents and trademark law on its software. And occasionally they relinquish those rights for some of their binary-only libraries or source header files. --69.54.29.23 14:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, anyway, maybe I should have dropped the "a copy" part but it seems that definitely "holds copyright" is less ambiguous to everybody. You "own" the physical medium on which the copy is reproduced, same goes for a book, but nothing more. You don't own a license, that's just a contract you've agreed to. The copyright is intellectual property (much as that term is bad in its own right) and it can be "owned" independently of physical property. So I think it's fair to say, "I own this piece of code," but it's more clear to say, "I hold the copyright over this piece of code." (In fact, what I actually think is that only source code should be copyrightable, and copyrighting binaries is like copyrighting a house, but that wouldn't stand so well with the establishment.) Chris Pickett 19:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"The GNU Project requires that contributors assign the copyright for GNU packages to the Free Software Foundation,[9] although exceptions have been made in the case of MULE,[10] and large parts of GNOME. Most GNU packages are licensed under the GPL, while a few use the LGPL, and an even smaller amount use other free software licenses." This seems to be in conflict with information on the GNU website: "For a program to be GNU software does not require transferring copyright to the FSF; that is a separate question. If you transfer the copyright to the FSF, the FSF will enforce the GPL for the program if someone violates it; if you keep the copyright, enforcement will be up to you." The reference cited for the claim in the article, I believe is referring not to GNU as a whole, but to Emacs in particular (which does require assignment usually, but an exception was made for MULE.) Are there objections to me tidying the claim in the article, so that it states that some existing projects require assignment, but that GNU in general does not? 82.32.8.187 22:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues you are discussing. The article is trying to explain the issue of assignment of contributions to existing GNU packages. You're mentioning that copyright assignment is not required by the FSF acceptance as a GNU package. My experience is that most GNU packages require copyright assignment, therefore the article is accurate. You could mention in the article that "new packages do not have to accept copyright assignment to become GNU packages. This will forego copyright enforcement by the FSF." --75.69.87.211 18:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, most GNU packages use C, so I'll make a change to the article to say that "The GNU project requires the use of C". (Obviously, I WON'T really make this change, I'm trying to demonstrate the flaw in what you are saying :) ). The article is not accurate, because it says "The GNU project requires that", about something the GNU Project does not require. It may be the case that most GNU packages require it (just like it is the case that most use C), and I'd be happy if the sentence said "Most GNU packages require copyright assignment...". 82.32.8.187 07:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have change the wording of this section. Neither the FSF or the GNU Project require copyright assignment for GNU software. The only time copyright assignment is required is when a new contributer joins an existing project for which the FSF owns copyright.

Incomplete

I don't think it's appropriate to say that GNU is "incomplete". Only reason to say that, that I can think of, would be Hurd. Yes, Hurd is far from usable, but it works pretty good on a basic level. I've booted and messed around with Hurd Live CDs myself. I'll remove the statement. 80.233.255.7 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, wait. I guess I was viewing a cached version. "Complete but unfinished" looks better. Oops. Ignore away.  :) 80.233.255.7 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignored.  :) Chris Pickett 22:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User Yworo is well know for pushing POV and then accusing other editors of it. The use of the word "incomplete" is not appropriate in the definition of the GNU operating system. Should we also add "incomplete" to the definition of "Linux" as an OS since indeed Linux is only a kernel that by itself is not a complete OS??? Using the opinion of a third person that is in accordance with his own POV is not acceptable as a valid and objective source.

--Grandscribe (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Readers will only be helped if the meaningful outlooks on this are cited and echoed in the text in a neutral way. The article (lead) does not yet do this. Some of it has to do with definitions. Linux, for example, is not an OS, it's a family of OS distros which share the Linux kernel. Calling Linux "incomplete," while in some ways true, would be wholly misleading. Likewise GNU. In a way, yes, GNU is incomplete because the kernel isn't ready, but it would be misleading to make a sweeping assertion in the article's narrative voice that GNU "is an incomplete OS." Lastly, GNU is still most widely noted as a port to other OSs, for its apps, utils, interface and so on. All of this should be pithily dealt with by the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading this, I would settle for "unfinished" rather than "incomplete" in the lead sentence. Once there is an official production release of GNU Hurd, it could of course be removed. Yworo (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Every active open source OS is "unfinished" technically, being always in development and being new features/drivers/bug fixes always added. Completeness is not a meaningful property therefore. GNU/Hurd boots, runs and can run GNU utilities just fine; it is simply hard to use, unstable and has only disadvantages compared to the Linux or *BSD kernels. Therefore, usually the distinction is between being production ready or not; I'd say the best wording is "not yet production ready".--Cyclopia^talk 10:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence needs to deal with this. I still think "unfinished" is best. But would consider "as yet unreleased for production". However, simplicity is always best in the lead sentence, so "unfinished" followed by an explanation in the first paragraph of how it is unfinished would be better than any long complicated phrase in the first sentence. Yworo (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Cyclopia

Hi. Perhaps you are unaware that GNU will not run without some other kernel, such as Linux? An operating system, by definition, consists of a kernel plus utilities. Since GNU Hurd is not yet functional and probably never will be, GNU is either something other than an operating system, or it is not yet complete. Even Stallman will admit this if pressed. It's why he is so obsessed with calling Linux "GNU/Linux". Yworo (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

GNU Hurd is functional, I installed it myself several times and it is definitely functioning. It is not very stable and it is abysmal when dealing with drivers, but you can run programs on it (heck, even KDE and GNOME can run on it!) and use it for simple everyday tasks. That said, "completeness" is POV : one could argue that Linux too is incomplete, or that Hurd is complete. To define it incomplete, you should have an objectively defined set of features that are required to be called so. Since I am not aware of an official and/or objective definition of operating system completeness apart from being able to be compiled and boot (which Hurd does), I'd say we should avoid any "complete/incomplete" characterization as POV and/or misleading. --Cyclopia^talk 09:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfinished and yet to release a first production version, then? Yworo (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove "unfinished" (which is synonimous to "incomplete" and as such inappropriate), and I'm fine. --Cyclopia^talk 15:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with Gwen Gale's edit, "is a computer operating system composed entirely of free software, with an as yet unfinished kernel." I think it's entirely accurate. Yworo (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. Or better, it is misleading: Linux is no more "finished" than GNU Hurd, in the meaning that both are in ongoing development, even if at very different stages. --Cyclopia^talk 15:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, have to disagree. GNU Hurd has had no official production release. It's underdevelopment and thus "unfinished". Linux is under continuing development, yes, but had an official production release years ago. Unfinished is exactly the right word for it, just a a building can be complete (i.e. structurally) but still be unfinished (cosmetically). Except that Hurd isn't even that far along. Yworo (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Find an objective definition of "unfinished" applied to operating systems and we can agree. Until that point, your disagreement is only POV. To be honest: If we were chatting at a beer, I would not mind or I would very much agree with you, because colloquially it makes much sense what you say. But since we're writing a neutral encyclopedia article, I must worry about misleading and personal statements. Hurd can be used, hundreds of useful programs run on it and it can be installed on real computers, but it is defective in modern drivers and some other goodies: as such it is no more "unfinished" than, say, MS DOS. --Cyclopia^talk 20:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Unstable kernel"? That can be sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User Yworo is not trying to reach consensus nor acting in good faith. He insists in pushing his POV to include the word "incomplete" even though most editors strongly disagree. As sources he gives links to articles which are opinion of the authors that coincide with his own personal opinion and not undisputable facts. --Grandscribe (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree there is no consensus for incomplete in the lead, but sourcing it as a published opinion in the body of the text would likely be ok, if other opinions are also sourced there. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a current element of what GNU is, and really belongs in the lead paragraph. No one has brought forward sources which say that it is "complete". Why are we excluding a word without sources for the opposing opinion? I have no doubt that we can found sources that say that the goal of GNU is a complete operating system, but where are the sources that say that it is now a complete operating system? As for working toward consensus, several editors have been involved in trying to fine tune the wording. I find that the last edit by Lawrencekhoo was much better than what I started with. Yworo (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You ask for a logical fallacy. What you ask is akin to "Do we have sources which say that Obama is not a green-eyed butterfly?" and taking the obvious lack of these sources as a proof that we can state that Obama is a green-eyed butterfly. Completeness and incompleteness are not adjectives that have an objective, non-OR, NPOV definition applied to operating systems. If it is incomplete, can you point us 1)what is it currently lacking and 2)why are these lacking features crucial to be "complete"?

Because for example our operating system article says: "An operating system (OS) is a set of system software programs in a computer that regulate the ways application software programs use the computer hardware and the ways that users control the computer." - GNU does all of that. Also it has all components listed in Operating_system#Components. So in what meaning is it incomplete?

About the source: To quote the source in context, something like "it has been labled as 'incomplete' by some[ref]" is OK to me. To state unequivocally that it is incomplete, like not meeting an objective definition of completeness, is totally misleading. --Cyclopia^talk 15:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying is that we should favor your original research and synthesis over what multiple sources actually say? Gwen Gale said in another thread that the wording in the source is what should be used. Please by all means provide opposing sources, ones that say GNU Hurd is complete and completes GNU. Sources that are not affiliated with the GNU project or the FSF. Yworo (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a strawman argument. I am advocating no OR and no SYN, quite the opposite: to say that it is "incomplete" is OR because it relies on a yet-to-know definiton of "completeness" that you are (not surprisingly) refusing to explain. Now, your source is quite appropriately entitled "Opinion: The top 10 operating system stinkers". It is an opinion piece, therefore, obviously, not a technical NPOV source. Therefore it is perfectly OK to use "the wording used in the source" to say something on the lines of "It has been considered "incomplete" by commentators[ref]", but it is emphatically not suitable to source the statement that it is "incomplete" like it was a fact. --Cyclopia^talk 16:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(moved from below): [6]: The current state is still far from being on par with Debian's established Linux ports, but it is mostly up to date and reasonably usable. - It doesn't say it is "complete" because (again) completeness and incompleteness have no objective definition applied to OS, but it shows that a GNU OS with a GNU kernel exists and it is (somehow) usable. --Cyclopia^talk 16:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a project status update, not an objective analysis or educated opinion. Yworo (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

2007-02-21: No "citation needed" tags now

I've added refs for the statements that were tagged as needing citations, and I removed one statement that needed a cite but maybe one exists (a statement about FSF hiring 15 programmers at its peak). A good document for citing is this speech that Stallman gave: http://fsfeurope.org/documents/rms-fs-2006-03-09.en.html

It's good because it has links for each section, so the relevent part can be linked to instead of just linking to the document and leaving it to the reader to find the relevent part - this is important because, for example, the part in that talk where he talks about GNU Hurd doesn't contain the word "Hurd" at all - he keeps calling it the GNU kernel. So linking to sections is useful there. Gronky 02:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett

I do believe the Terry Pratchett reference is a mistake. A Gnu is a type of animal. In Terry Pratchett's novels (notably Men At Arms and the Gnome trilogy) Gnu is used as a humorous misunderstanding of the word "gun" (In the Gnome trilogy, there is a small passage where the protagonists are trying to figure out how a character in a thriller novel could hijack a plane with an African grazer). "The Smoking Gnu" would be a reference to The Smoking Gun, a real life conspiracy theorist group. I honestly think its a stretch to declare that Pratchett was making reference to a Unix-like OS....... Patch86 13:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, in the absence of a direct statement from Pratchett, this kind of kind is simply idle speculation, and should be vaporized on sight. Stan 15:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Gronky 12:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is safe to say not one person above actually read "Going Postal". If you had you would see the parrallels being drawn and realise that the book is a clear statement from Pratchett himself. Semi-spoiler alert ... the "Gnu" in The Smoking Gnu is a reference within the book to the clacks code G.N.U. where the G doesn't stand for anything but signifies it is a service code, the N means the message is not logged and the U means the message should be returned from the end of a line (note the G is stuck on for no real reason). The use of the GNU code in the book is to carry no more and no less then a single persons name across the clacks forever as "a man will not die while his name is still spoken".

Note I have simply summarised the usage of the word GNU in the Pratchett context the original piece was refering to, the entire book is about the dot-com era and the distinction between those who did the work and those who played with the paper money. So to the 3 people above, please confirm you have not read the book or go read it and amend your comments! Whether or not a wikipedia article on an Operating System is really the place to discuss references to the OS in general culture is another question I won't even offer an opinion on though. Justnotmyip (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Free Software needs help

Someone has set up WikiProject Free Software. It has many people listing themselves as participants, but it seems to still need some leadership and some action to develop the project and to build momentum. Some people from here might be able to help. Suggestions can be found and made on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Free_Software. Gronky 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Operating System?

How many people consider it to be an 'operating system'? It is POV to simply assert that it is one. To many, it's just considered to be a series of userland programs. -Nathan J. Yoder 19:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what an Operating System is? -- AdrianTM 02:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Errr, what? The ultimate goal is a complete operating system. Don't let the FSF's insistence on conflating Linux and GNU distract you from the fact that their ostensible goal is to do the whole thing themselves. Your assertion is sort of like saying a lot of people think of BSD as a collection of userland programs because almost everyone uses bits of BSD code in other operating systems. Chris Cunningham 12:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Small correction: FSF and GNU never aimed to write the whole thing themself. They just wanted to do what was necessary to make a free OS exist. This included using X Window System and TeX and some other software they didn't write. Gronky 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt TeX can be considered as a part of an Operating System, it's only an application. -- AdrianTM 13:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Errr, please don't let's get into this again. Thanks :) Chris Cunningham 13:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what your personal view is, as this is about NPOV policy, which represents views as they are and it's not universally accepted that GNU is an operating system. Out of curiosity, who thinks of BSD as a collection of userland programs? -Nathan J. Yoder 23:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It was an analogy. Anyway, feel free to find some actual sources who don't, err, believe that GNU is an operating system and we can talk. This is a highly silly argument from where I'm sitting. Chris Cunningham 10:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick search and found this (as an example) right away. This is entrenched with the whole debate over Linux vs. GNU/Linux and whether Linux is an OS or not. I'm very surprised that you've never come across this. I don't find it at all silly to consider userland programs to not be an OS. It's actually rare that I hear anyone refer to GNU as an OS, which is why I was surprised to see it say that on the Wikipedia article.

I should add that if you look at that particular thread, there are several people agreeing with him as well. You can weed through the larger of that and other threads if you wish, but it's rather tedious--you have to read all the other stuff that comes with those arguments as well. If you're curious, I searched for gnu "is not" operating system. You can try varying searches. -Nathan J. Yoder 07:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing issues here. If you use Linux as a kernel then there's some dispute as to whether the whole thing is really "GNU" (Gronky thinks it is, I don't really care but I'm not willing to call it that, etc). But if you're using an officially-approved GNU kernel (like Hurd) from the FSF (and leaving out silly debates about X and tex for the sake of brevity) there's no question that the combined result is "an operating system called GNU". See the voluminous archives on talk:Linux for some discussion of the issue you're on about. Chris Cunningham 09:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not confusing issues. NPOV isn't about "who is right," it's about "what views people hold." As I've shown, it's not universally held that GNU is an OS and therefore, stating that it is one, is a violation of NPOV policy. What you're referring to is "GNU Hurd" not just "GNU" anyway, making it "an operating system called "GNU Hurd." I don't know anyone who refers to a Hurd system as just "GNU," nor "GNU OS." -Nathan J. Yoder 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's probably because nobody actually runs Hurd. Regardless, the article text currently states that GNU is an ongoing and unfinished project, so it's no more sensible to nitpick whether the end result is defined correctly than it is to argue that SETI isn't about contacting aliens because no-one's answered yet. If you want to introduce a well-sourced section to the article disputing whether or not GNU is really an operating system or not then knock yourself out; existential arguments on free software talk pages aren't really my bag. Chris Cunningham 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Regardless of how sensible you think it is, it's still disputed and thus isn't NPOV. NPOV issues aren't resolved by championing the "right side" in the article and justifying on the basis of an added section for disputes. There would be a big revert war if I were to just modify the intro paragraphs so that it doesn't state outright that it's an OS, which is why I want to come up with an NPOV wording BEFORE making changes. That analogy doesn't work; SETI exists exclusively for that one purpose and couldn't possibly be confused as having another purpose, plus they're not making a product so there's no name confusion. -Nathan J. Yoder 01:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How exactly isn't GNU an OS? Or you maybe make a confusion between GNU toolchain that is used by other OSes and the entire GNU that's an OS in construction, if you are curious you can run a GNU Live CD with Hurd kernel, yeah it's crappy (heck it might not even boot on your machine and it definitely wouldn't run your games, but that doesn't make it less of an OS) -- AdrianTM 02:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already specified how it isn't and I'm not really going to repeat it at this point. Instead of arguing it anymore, I will simply stick to the point that the article is not WP:NPOV compliant. The question then becomes how to phrase it properly and what citations become necessary. If we are to provide citations for both views (aside from the official FSF/GNU pages), how should this be done? It's not a big enough issue that, AFAIK, there would be a newspaper article written on it. I'm thinking of perhaps a single reference with examples of threads from newsgroups and blogs--simple induction. -Nathan J. Yoder 20:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So you want to push opinions from newsgroups and blogs into an Encyclopedia? -- AdrianTM 21:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "push" anything. As it stands now, the article is "pushing" a one sided view, I'm trying to correct that, to comply with NPOV standards. Newsgroups, blogs and other sources demonstrate the existence of this other view, do you have better sources for this? Wikipedia can and has used both of the sources in other articles and for good reasons too, so I don't see what your opposition here is, except to keep the article only showing your personal view. Even this very article uses a mailing list, newsgroup and blog as references. Please, remove those from the article right now if you don't think they're good sources. -Nathan J. Yoder 00:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Newsgroups and blogs" are not reliable sources, please read what WP:NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (my emphasis) Bring other sources and we'll talk about that. -- AdrianTM 00:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And I agree with you if this article uses newsgroups and blog as references there should be removed, but 1. don't ask me to do this because I don't owe you anything 2. some references might be valid in context, if RMS or Linus post on blogs or newsgroups those are their opinions and might be quoted as such, however if jerk3446777 says in his blog that he doesn't consider GNU an OS then that can be safely ignored by an Encyclopedia, as it should... again bring the quote and we'll discuss on it, I can't discuss theoretically about a quote I didn't see. -- AdrianTM 00:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quoting anyone, I'm simply demonstrating that the contrary view is common. I've already provided a link and search term to find more, please read back in the conversation before posting here asking me to repeat myself (you already did this once before). This isn't just one person, as I've already demonstrated. I'm not sure why you consider sources clearly demonstrating various different people disagreeing with the view unreliable, are you suggesting they were forged by a small group of people intending to look like many? Let's consider the opposite here: where are your sources demonstrating the commonality of the view that it IS an OS? You have the official website, but that's about it.

If you don't provide a quote what are we discussing about? -- AdrianTM 02:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that you seem to have contradicted yourself. You think that they aren't reliable sources, except...when they aren't. There's nothing inherently unreliable about blog, mailing list and newsgroup postings--or even search engine searches (which are usually used to demonstrate notability of something), and as such, having not even read the links I provided, I find your objection very odd. -Nathan J. Yoder 02:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the links, do you want me to beg on the knees? I don't think I contradict myself, I said that in general they don't have a place in an Encyclopedia except of course if the persons that published the blogs are notable for the article and I gave example RMS and Linus, versus anonymous_jerk. If the quotes you provide (if you do provide) are from somebody like Linus and they are current and relevant then they should be used. -- AdrianTM 02:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you seriously not encountered many people with this view? I did provide a link to a thread above, along with my search, as I said. How about an MIT professor of applied mathematics or one of the Slash (Slashdot code) and MacPerl programmers? (this guy and this guy). I found threads from mailing lists and newsgroups with them discussing it (one even mentioning that it's a common view). I can find them again if you think they're 'qualified.' -Nathan J. Yoder 02:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what opinions I've encountered, please bring the quote forth and we'll decide if we can use it otherwise we blow only hot air over here. I'll tell you from now what criteria _I_ will use to decide if the quote is good or not:

1. . is the opinion pertinent and relevant to the subject
2. . is the opinion current
3. . who expressed the opinion and in what context.
   

Maybe I forgot something, but that's the basic stuff when deciding to put something in Wikipedia. So think about these 3 issues and see if it's worth to trouble other people with the issue, if you think it is don't hesitate to bring up the quote... don't ask for premission from anybody. -- AdrianTM 03:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this is relevant to the article...it's the article for GNU. They are current, but that's irrelevant anyway, because Wikipedia is not in the business of excluding historical information. I posted the people in question because the main question here is who expressed it, not the other things. I can look them up *again*, but I'd rather see what you and others think of the people first before I expend more effort. So, do you consider such people to be 'quotable' on this subject? -Nathan J. Yoder 05:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I will cease to discuss this until you provide the quote. -- AdrianTM 12:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The example give was here. I've addressed why it's invalid given the context already. There are few notable sources who agree with the user's declaration and few who dispute that "GNU" can be defined as "an operating system composed entirely of free software", so at any rate it's a minority position and disputing NPOV based on them is psychological projection. I wouldn't advise losing too much sleep over this. Chris Cunningham 13:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't addressed why it's "invalid given the context." You stated your opinion on the matter, you didn't address why the quote isn't in this context, nor why it shouldn't be included beyond you simply disagreeing with it. I can't assume good faith with you Adrian, when you keep refusing to address the things I say and ignore the link I've already pasted. I'm not going to quote an entire conversation in here, so please click the inks instead of complaining. Thumperward's position that this is a 'minority position' is unsupported. I've asked for sources beyond the GNU/FSF websites themselves demonstrating the extent of people who DO consider it a "GNU OS" (which people rarely call it that--the only people I've seen do it are avid FSF/GNU supporters). You could, however, make more false analogies.

Here are three more threads (you need to scroll down to get to the GNU OS stuff): (1, 2, 3)

-Nathan J. Yoder 06:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the point's been adequately made. If the opinions of random people on Linux kernel discussions made eight years ago (when no GPL kernel other than Linux could actually boot and run programs) are the best source you can come up with, there's little point in continuing this conversation. I'm personally disinterested in spending 50% of my time on Wikipedia trying to tell the GNU and anti-GNU camps that they can't define each other's projects. Chris Cunningham 08:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

An MIT professor and Slash+MacPerl programmer aren't random people. It's as if you're deliberately ignoring what I've already said. I don't know why this being eight years ago matters. As I stated, at worst it's historical and that doesn't preclude its inclusion. One was also just 6 years ago, but ignoring that makes it go away. Your idea that their views have changed is pure speculation and your own opinion, which is not a valid reason for exclusion. You seem intent on making excuses to exclude it. You also seem to show no interest at all in verifying that this is, in fact, a minority view, despite you knowing that practically no one says "GNU OS" (what does that refer to anyway, Hurd? MULTIPLE OSes? [which would make 'GNU OS'--singular--invalid]). Nathan J. Yoder 08:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just 6 years ago? You must be joking or you have no idea how computing field works, it's like bringing a 6 years old quote that Vista is not an OS. -- AdrianTM 13:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was right, you're not honestly interested in the quotes, now that I've provided them. Did you even bother to read them? So are you suggesting that it was valid to say 6 years ago? If not, you have no valid point. You're also contradicting yourself. First you said that if it's an OS "in construction" that it's still an OS. Now, apparently, if it's in construction, it's NOT an OS. How is this analogous to Vista when GNU Hurd was in the planning for decades and was in development since 1990? Your analogy makes no sense.

I seriously hope you're proud of wasting my time. My intuition was right--and I was right in the beginning to ask you to address the people I listed before I got the quotes again. *sigh* I did just so you couldn't say "but he didn't do it." -Nathan J. Yoder 00:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I explained pretty well why we need current info, not old info that doesn't apply anymore. I said that before that current info is important, you can accuse people around of whatever you want, but if you come up with 6 year old quote to prove that something is or isn't now you'll not going to very successful, besides I look at those quote most of the people talk about GNU tools not about whole GNU. -- AdrianTM 03:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is current. And no, you never explained that. You're just looking for an excuse and the fact that you didn't address anything I just said, including your own contradiction, makes me wonder whether you'd accept any quote for inclusion regardless of who said it and when. So what's your reason for believing that everyone suddenly changed their minds, again? Also, what's your reason for excluding historical information, again? You never justified it, you just compared an OS that was in development for 17 years to an OS in development for only a few years. Besides, the fact that other people weren't talking about doesn't negate the fact that others DID talk about it. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"It is current.".... "just 6 years ago" Enough said. -- AdrianTM 04:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The article begins by saying "GNU" is an OS, and provides a link to the article "Operating Systems" which has a concise definition of the concept; unfortunately the description given there does not fit GNU in any way.

It is true that GNU began as an attempt to clone UNIX and that the project eventually released the Hurd, the GNU kernel; but the GNU applications work with any POSIX compliant kernel - why else is Stallman always insisting that Linux be called "GNU/Linux"?

That first paragraph should be rewritten.

Can't you read a little bit above? Why open a new discussion? -- AdrianTM 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of anyone's opinion here, the only definition of "operating system" that matters in this context is POSIX. GNU provides the kernel, C library, core utilities and shell required to call it's self a POSIX operating system. It's about as simple as that. Noahslater 12:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro wording changes

While this is an eternal struggle, it should be pointed out that the current lead is the most succinct version thus far and that changing it for the sake of "readability" would necessitate making it shorter, not by beating about the bush a little more. I've reverted the recent rewording because it didn't clarify anything; it merely aimed to continue to beat on about the "GNU/Linux" thing. Chris Cunningham 11:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. I added "commonly called Linux" and you're still not happy. My change made it more readable because a recent edit made the intro talk about "Linux" before there was any information about what is meant by "Linux" in this context. Your definition of readability is for people who lack the endurance to read 100 words instead of 95 words. My definition is that the text should make sense to someone who isn't involved in this Talk page nitpicking sessions. Gronky 11:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I rolled back the other edit as well; I'm not singling you out. It shouldn't require "endurance" to read a Wikipedia article, especially not where said endurance comes in the form of having to wade through how venerable and production-tested things were before some upstart kernel came along. It's my view that as far as GNU is concerned the kernel is of sufficiently little importance right now that we should be mentioning it as little as possible. Chris Cunningham 11:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realised you'd rolled back the other change too. I've reinstated the part I added about most components being completed a decade ago. As you say, the kernel is of little importance, proportionally, and so I've reduced the kernelcentricness of the 3rd para. Gronky 11:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What components do you consider to be of greater importance thant the kernel?! The only things i can think of that have similar importance are the C compiler and its supporting libraries and tools (since a system is of little use if you can't compile stuff for it). GNU downplays the significance of the kernel because its where they failed due to adopting a radical design but we are not thier propoganda team!

That seems like an interesting comment for a discussion forum, but I don't see what is to be responded to in terms of discussing how to improve the article. Gronky 09:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The GNU project regards the kernel as an very important component of an operating system. The difference to »Linux users« is that they don't think the kernel is the operating system. -- mms 09:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the difference from Linux users is the goal of reconsolidation under a cathedral of authority manifested in the attempt to enforce an unwritten licensing clause upon most of the world. But we're not here to bicker about that. The FSF lost that argument with most of the community about ten years ago. In the interest of cooperation, those who aren't unpaid members of the FSF's advertising squad would rather that this article concentrated to as great an extent as possible on what the FSF have actually accomplished, and thus mentioned the kernel by which the FSF's bread and butter is earned as infrequently as possible. By this means it is hoped that the FSF's unpaid advertising squad would concentrate on improving this article to FA status instead of randomly trolling other free software articles in pursuit of a more favourable revision of history. Chris Cunningham 22:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

who are going to talk about GNU GPL v3?

this is the new versionf of gnu, but I don't know where I can put this information and how. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html --208.104.151.215 15:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the GNU operating system. Please work on the article about the GNU General Public License if you can contribute to it. -- mms 15:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Linux variant of GNU

I know that Linux or GNU/Linux (whatever you want to call it, don't want to discuss that here) uses some GNU tools, does that make it a "variant of GNU"? -- AdrianTM 23:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends who you ask. The FSF say yes. Most anyone who doesn't say "GNU/Linux" doesn't. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I say "GNU" because I'm too lazy to say "GNU slash Linux". --mms (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a variant of GNU, and the reason is that it does much more than "uses some GNU tools". The GNU contribution is larger than the Linux contribution, and GNU contributes parts that cannot be replaced (such as glibc) while Linux only contributes a kernel (which can be replaced by the kernels of FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, or with reduced capacity, Hurd). Also, the GNU contribution is the contribution which made an operating system exist. The Linux contribution (a kernel) was only useful by chance. The GNU contribution was specifically worked on (for 8 years before Linux was even a twinkle in Linus's eye) with the goal of making an operating system. That's why GNU/Linux (or "the Linux operating system") is a variant of GNU. --Gronky (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's easy as heck to replace every "required" GNU portion of a Linux distribution with know how. There's TWO, count them, TWO alternatives to glibc for Linux at least: uclibc and klibc. Sorry, but it looks like you've been drinking the Stallmanist Kool-Aid: Linux distros don't need GNU. And GNU is not what makes an "operating system" at all. You've made the mistake of following the wrong definition of operating system like RMS did when he tried basically turning Linux into his little poster project against Linus Torvalds's will. An operating system is only the software needed to manage processes, hardware, and resources DIRECTLY from kernel-space. Nothing more, nothing less. GNU does not fit the bill. Nor is a system distribution GNU, as it's whatever the developer calls it, as it is way more than the GNU toolchain. The system distribution is the whole, of which GNU doesn't even make 10%. GNU is just a toolchain. Nothing else. It COULD have been a full system distribution and OS, if RMS had ever finished the HURD. So unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt WITHOUT using Richard Stallman's horribly limited logic, I delted the GNU variants section and will continue to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.97.210 (talk)

Y'know what software was used in the creation of uClibc and klibc? :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant. I use the GCC to compile my own software, doesn't magically make it GNU. And there are other free compilers that could be used. Linux is not GNU either just because it was compiled and originally built off of it. That's like saying every document I type in Word is magically Microsoft. Amazing the inane flaws and leaps of logic Stallmanists use to try to "prove" they're right. So, my challenge to the Stalmanists remains: Prove beyond a reasonable doubt Linux distributions are GNU. And don't use any of the so-called "logic" Stallman did. The burden of proof is not on Linux, so I need not provide anything proving it's not. Unless Stallman can actually prove and convince more than the sheer minority he has convinced that it is GNU, there's nothing the real Linux crowd needs to do to refute the claims of someone who seems to be acting more out of ego and jealousy than anything else. That I can't prove, but I bet that's likely what it is. Now, as for the presence of GNU in the majority of Linux distros: Big whoop. Presense of tools does not mean the whole system is centered around them. I install MinGW on Windows, it doesn't magically turn Windows into GNU/Windows. By RMS's flawed Logic, I may as well call Linux GNU/Xorg/MIT/BSD/GNU/Linux. Old argument, I know, but no Stallmanist ever beats it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.97.210 (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, ever notice how people desperate to prove they aren't as wrong as they are type more and more? :p I'm not even going to read that. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I'll just conclude anyone who says Linux is GNU is just an asshole. you didn't prove anything, you didn't even solidify your point. If you read my comment you'd see I made all my points concisely. Way to basically lose an argument by not even making one. (Edit) I may as well conclude that that's a roundabout way of saying "I can't prove you wrong." Especially since there's no factual or logical basis Stallman gave as to why Linux is GNU that hasn't been swiftly debunked by anyone with a shred of common sense..

Variants article merge

There's not much on the sub-page; we should merge it in here for now until it grows a bit. As-is, it serves little purpose other than to attract external links to people's pet variant projects. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Contra The article GNU variants is important. If not we should merge Linux into GNU, too. It's just a variant of GNU, you know? --mms (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't important, I said it was too short to stand alone right now. I support a split when there's enough general information available about non-HURD GNUs to warrant shifting them out. Remember that most of them had their own articles merged into GNU variants for exactly the same reason. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

comment - if it was to be merged somewhere, I don't think this is the right target. Although GNU and the GNU variants share a lot in terms of software, the former is specifically the product of one project (the GNU project). The software contained in the OS is only one defining characteristic. The ownership/control, history, design decisions, and other things are also important factors and they don't have so much in common with the GNU variants. --Gronky (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct. There's a distinct article for GNU project separate to GNU. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pro first of all if kept the GNU variants article should be renamed "Operating Systems that use GNU tools", few people call BSD or Solaris or Linux based OS a "GNU variant" it uses GNU tools it's not a GNU variant since it's not built by GNU project. In open source using source from one project or another is a very common thing, if a part of the code in your project comes from another project your project doesn't become automatically a variant of that project, that's ludicrous. I think that that info belongs to this article it should be put into a subsection called "OSes that use GNU tools", GNU variants is a very small article and this article is not too long either to need to be cut into sub-articles. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

comment GNU variants is a term used by the folks of the GNU project. Also please consider that GNU was the first free operating system and all free kernels (or kernels who became free) are younger. --mms (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

comment GNU people promote code freedom, but they don't know how and when to let go, if I start a project that uses some of the GNU tools I want it to name it however I want and not with a name the GNU people choose. What kind of freedom is that when the upstream coder comes and say "no, no, you use my code, you must use the name that I choose"? But I thought the code was free... actually same mistake that Linus Torvalds have done, he thought the code was free, but now he sees that it comes with strings and religious trolls attached to it. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The term GNU variant is not intended to be used for advertising. It is a scientific term to name a group of operating systems. It is not only permitted but also required to rename a fork of GNU GPL covered software. So there are no legal grounds to sue Torvalds for naming the operating system which he has not written Linux. But it is illegitimate not to give credit to the GNU project. The work began 1984 not 1991. Torvalds and the Open Source community are conducting historical revisionism. --mms (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

People give credit however they want, I think Torvalds gave enough credit for the code that he used from other projects. Sometimes when you say "thank you very much" and people are still not happy you start to think that there's something wrong with those people... -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not only permitted but also required to rename a fork of GNU GPL covered software

Much like your "scientific naming" thing, this is totally unsubstantiated. No such thing is required. But seriously, people, Linux is not the subject of this thread. Please stop arguing about an unrelated subject on a merge discussion. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Development philosophy

Here's an interesting comment on RMS's style of project management for the GNU OS:

http://lwn.net/Articles/272957/

Might be worth referencing in the article. --Gronky (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting yes, but more of an anecdotal observation, not really an authoritative source that we can rely on. Stan (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

GNU/Linux probably shouldn't link here

The redirect link GNU/Linux has recently been changed to link here instead of linking to Linux. I think that's a mistake. This article is about the GNU operating system, which doesn't include the Linux kernel. The article called Linux is about the operating system made by combining GNU and the Linux kernel. So I think GNU/Linux should point there, even if the article's name ("Linux") is badly chosen. --Gronky (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This was fixed 14:25, 20 February 2009 by Stevenj. Kiore (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Open Source

how is open source related to the GNU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.136.78 (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

GNU is an operating system, developed by the GNU project. The GNU project was the first project of the free software movement, launched in 1983. The free software movement developed software, a philosophy, and The Free Software Definition.

In 1998, after the main work was already done, "open source" was launched by some other people to promote just definition (not the philosophy), under their own name "open source". I think that's as good a summary as is possible of this 27-year story in four sentences :-) Gronky (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a little POV-pushing in this summary :-) - as someone who had to explain "free software" about 754,389 times during the 90s, and that it didn't mean that every for-profit company had to dissolve itself (you laugh, but potential customers did ask), I was very happy that people came up with a broader term that carried less ideological baggage. Stan (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Sociology

An IP is repeatedly adding the article to Category:Sociology. While I see the point and I understand the motivation, I highly doubt it is a good idea. GNU is an operating system; if anything the category should perhaps be added to the general concepts of Free software, open source or the like (also in these cases I doubt it is the right cat, but at least it makes more sense). --Cyclopia^talk 12:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this article belongs to the sociology category. It is a project to "fix the society" if you will. There's this other editor who disagrees and we're having a lovely little edit war. Please do partake! :) 85.77.165.59 (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the category. Yworo (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is quite worthless without your reasoning, if any. 85.77.165.59 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

GNU belongs to the Category:GNU Project. In turn, this belongs to Category:Free Software Foundation, which in turn belongs to Category:Free and open source software organizations, which belongs to Category:Free software culture and organizations and Category:Nonprofit technology. The latter belongs to Category:Technology in society, which belongs to Category:Society. So, yes, GNU already belongs to Category:Society through the subcategories hierarchy. No need to add it directly to an upper level category. --Cyclopia^talk 18:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

GNU is either not an OS or it is incomplete

An OS requires a working kernel. The GNU project does not have a working kernel. This means either that GNU is incomplete or that it is not an operating system. You can't have it both ways. Either we describe it as incomplete, or as an unfinished project, or as a collection of userland packages. It is POV to claim it to be an operating system when it does not have its own kernel. If people insist on calling it an OS, it should be redirected to GNU/Linux, because that is the primary way people solve the problem of its incompleteness. The reference given says that GNU is incomplete because the kernel is incomplete. Yworo (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

See also Talk:GNU#Incomplete above. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind at all that my one-off edit was removed, it was only meant as help. I'm neutral as to any outcome, my comments here are meant to help editors think about sourcing and other policies. However, if editors keep going back and forth over this, rather than reaching a consensus somewhere on this talk page first, I will protect the article from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources

As I am sure most of you are aware, we cannot rely on primary sources (i.e. the GNU project and/or the FSF) for the information in this article. This article appears to be written from a fan's point of view based on claims of the organization producing the product. Yworo (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Some primary sources are allowed if care is taken. There is nothing untowards, say, about quoting gnu.org's website with an attribution to the website in the text itself, so readers know straight off where it came from. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There is when the GNU project's claim that GNU is an operating system is taken over the definition of an operating system, which requires a working kernel. Also, it would be better if third-party sources were used, wouldn't it? Yworo (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no harm whatsoever with putting their (verifiable as having been made) claim into the article text. Likewise, it would be helpful to cite secondary sources (what you call "third party") which both dispute that claim and support it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that and intend to wait 24 hours before making another change myself in any case. Though I wish all the involved users would join the discussion on this talk page to work out consensus wording. I don't think GNU variants such as GNU/Linux should be used in the lead to justify a claim that GNU is finished, though. Linux was never made with the intention of completing GNU, is not part of the GNU project, and never was. Yworo (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing to do here is follow what the sources say. If they don't say the same things, deal with that in the text, too. As for the software, as it happens, I've been using GNU software here and there (on FreeBSD) for years and truth be told, when I was asked to look at this, I wasn't even aware they were still hoping to release a stable OS. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, this wasn't where I'd intended to post, but discussing sources does seem the next thing to do. The non-GNU sources I've cited use the word "incomplete". Specifically, they say that GNU as an OS is incomplete because it's kernel is incomplete. I'm not sure that FSF has ever described GNU as a complete operating system, except in the context of "GNU variants" or as a future goal. I'd like to see one reliable source that described GNU as a completed, production-ready, operating system rather than as a project with that goal. Yworo (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me, the big worry other editors have is only with the wording of the lead. I would think that in the following text, sundry sources and adjectives wouldn't be taken as misleading and would give readers a thorough overview of cited outlooks on the kernel. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

Someone has changed the subject of the article from GNU to GNU/Linux, which has its own article. This change should be reverted. Yworo (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Is the word "incomplete" adequately sourced for the lead paragraph?

Background: The incompleteness of GNU has been discussed for a number of years, with (primarily) GNU proponents always removing the word without providing supporting sources for GNU's completeness. Some of the more recent discussions can be found in these section of this talk page:

#Incomplete

#Operating System?

#GNU is either not an OS or it is incomplete

#Primary sources

The proposed version of the lead paragraph is:

GNU (pronounced /ˈɡnuː/ ) is a computer operating system composed entirely of free software. It is currently incomplete as GNU Hurd, its official kernel, is not yet production-ready, but production use is possible using a Linux kernel or other free kernel. Its name is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not Unix!” This name was chosen because GNU's design is Unix-like, but differs from Unix by being free software and containing no Unix code. Development of GNU was initiated by Richard Stallman and was the original focus of the Free Software Foundation (FSF).

Is the word "incomplete" adequately sourced for the lead paragraph? Yworo (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional references re completeness / incompleteness

Here is a place to list, under the two subheadings provided (added Yworo (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)), additional references both for and against completeness. Yworo (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Unproductive argument about talk page etiquette

:Please do not move editors entries or otherwise refactor this discussion. Such tactics are not fair, and are prohibited by talk page guidelines. This means you, Cyclopia. Yworo (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Your statement is irrelevant wikilawyering. You said explicitly above: "Here is a place to list additional references". This means that you leave other users to use this place to list the references, and this also obviously includes recategorizing them. It's not a talk page comment, it's not like I am refactoring your comments to make you say something you haven't said. So, my move stands. Either this is a place to list additional references, or this is a place where you and only you give your own personal opinion on references. If you edit to explictly state it is the second, I won't move again. If it is the first, it means you leave other users the ability to help doing this categorization of references. --Cyclopiatalk 16:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC) You may not relegate, on your own opinions, another editor's contribution as "irrelevant". You may comment in the place where I put it, and you are of course welcome to call your own references irrelevant. Yworo (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC) It's not your contribution, it's the reference which is relevant but not suitable (not "irrelevant", I fixed that mistake long ago). Now, please answer questions: is this a place where we collectively build a list of reference, or it is your sandbox to collect your own opinion on references? It can't be both. --Cyclopiatalk 16:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Then comment after the entry. Refactoring the discussion in this way is counter-productive, it is against talk page guidelines, it is uncivil, and you are edit warring over it. Do it again and I will report you to all the appropriate noticeboard and you will likely be blocked. Yworo (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I ask again: is this a place where we collectively build a list of reference, or is it your sandbox to collect your own opinion on references? It can't be both. Please give an answer, because if it's the first, it means it can be edited and that they are not comments. If it's the second, please clarify it in the initial statement, which gives the impression that it is a place where everyone is welcome to edit. There is nothing "uncivil" in refactoring a list of references. What is uncivil are your nonsense templates on my talk page and your threats. --Cyclopiatalk 17:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC) The heading an editor gives to an entry is part of their comment. There should be only the two sections I added. Put an entry under one or the other and the we can discuss relevance in place. Yworo (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC) You are refusing to answer my question above, which is pretty revealing. Yworo, you can't create a public space to add references and then request that we follow your rules like "there should be only the two sections I added". We're not here to play your games, we're here to collectively work to make this article better. So, if you want people to help, and you provide an open, public canvas for people to list references and help selecting them, you have to accept that your own categorization of such references could be contested and that other sections can be added. If instead you want to state your own opinion on references, fine, but do not show it as a public, open canvas. You can't say "We'll work together to categorize references, but we will do it with MY rules!". Either we do the rules together and work together, or you do your own rules, and work alone. For this reason, I am removing my entries from below, since I don't want to legitimate this situation unless you decide a clear position. --Cyclopiatalk 17:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not refusing to answer anything. You changed the terms of the discussion I started. You don't get to do that. There are two categories of reference here. Adding two more categories called "Irrelevent" and "Unuseable" or whatever they were is not productive. Moving other editors comments is against guidelines. You are edit warring over talk page refactoring, which isn't permitted. I've been quite clear about it, and given you a series of official warnings with links to the policy on your talk page. Which you didn't read, apparently. Yworo (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I know the policy, thank you (I had problems in the past with people removing my comments and therefore I know WP:TALKO). Let us review the situation: You create a paragraph starting Here is a place to list additional references both for and against completeness. - This implies that you want people to add and list more stuff in there. I add another category under which to list references and move one of the reference there, with explanation. You aggressively revert saying that it is refactoring your talk page comments I ask you "well, if so, do you really want people to edit this paragraph and help in categorizing references or is this just a place where you dump how you personally categorize them without further help?" You refuse to answer to this question and you say that we should follow your rules, for some unknown reason, to use the paragraph (and then explicitate that on top) When I refuse to legitimate that and therefore move my edits, you send me another TALKO violation warning, like you were actually owning the paragraph. So? Again, either this is a public place where to help categoriaze reference, or it is your own playground. But it can't be both. Choose one, and everything becomes fine again. No need to extend this lame discussion further, just take your pick. --Cyclopiatalk 17:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I think I've made my position very clear. You are being obtuse. That's my final comment on the matter. I've reported you for vandalism, and at Wikiquette alerts. Go have a discussion on the matter with uninvolved editors. This is my last response to your studied obtuseness. Yworo (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Supporting completeness (or being finished, usable, etc.)

• [7]: "The current state is still far from being on par with Debian's established Linux ports, but it is mostly up to date and reasonably usable." added by Yworo (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a status update from the project itself. We need third-party sources. Yworo (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Supporting incompleteness (or unfinished, unusable, unstable, etc.)

• Hillesley, Richard. "GNU HURD: Altered visions and lost promise", June 30, 2010. See especially page 3: "Nearly twenty years later the HURD has still to reach maturity, and has never achieved production quality." ... "Some of us are still wishing and hoping for the real deal, a GNU operating system with a GNU kernel." (added by Yworo (talk))

(restored from history) "(Does not say it is incomplete, it says that it "has still to reach maturity" and "never achieved production quality"). --Cyclopia^talk 16:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC) - Moved to "Relevant but not suitable" for reasons above. --Cyclopia^talk 16:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)"

• (from gnu.org itself) hurd: "The GNU Hurd is under active development. Because of that, there is no stable version." and "Debian GNU/Hurd is currently under development and available in the unstable branch of the Debian archive." added by Yworo (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• (from sourceforge) GNU Hurd at Sourceforge Page: "Note that this is an "unstable" distribution, in that it is not currently read[y] for use in a production environment." Note that earlier in the paragraph is says that the packaging is quite stable.added by Yworo (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, if you want to cite sources to support putting the word incomplete in the lead, you'll need to cite only sources which use that word.

"Everyone," please stop refactoring talk page posts, even in good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Cyclopia seems to want something on the order of "It has been described as...", I am now in favor of listing the different variations on the theme of incomplete, unfinished, unstable, etc. Yworo (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)