Talk:GNU/Linux

Notes on the differences between Ubuntu Christian and Ubuntu Satanic versions: The Christian version of Ubuntu actually modifies the base software that comes with the distribution, adding software such as Gnomesword and Dansguardian with the distro; i.e. it's a distribution. Ubuntu Satanic on the other hand, is just Ubuntu/Kubuntu with a "satanic" theme; i.e. colors, wallpaper and some graphics. If the user S.E. either deleted or selecting another theme, you would be back to the basic Kubuntu distribution.

I can find no references that Ubuntu Satanic Edition is either a parody or in response to the Christian edition. The author of the article on DesktopLinux.com makes a comment that the theme is a response to the Christian edition, but that appears to be an assumption on his part, as I can find nothing from the authors on the Satanic version site that indicates that it is. --Todd 10:15 March 21 2007 EDT

I agree, describing the Satanic Edition as a parody is a point of view. Clearly the people behind it intend to serve a user base they think exists.

I wasn't sure what this statement meant: "The theme is an example, such as Ubuntu Christian Edition [3], of GPL licensed software which may be modified and re-released." So I rewrote what I thought it was meant to mean. If I was wrong, feel free to fix it.--All Fish Welcome 17:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Who did what

The article, like most in the trade press, gives far too much credit to Linus Torvalds and downplays the work of Richard Stallman inexcusably.

I took out this sentence, because it is incorrect:

• "It was started in 1991 as a university project by Finnish student Linus Torvalds as a replacement for the Minix operating system."

In fact, "Linux" (i.e., the GNU/Linux operating system, began nearly a decade before Torvalds got started:

• The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system. [1]

We should give credit where credit is due. Our web site runs on free software like Apache and GNU, thanks to RMS!! --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:56, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Actually, Linux is just the kernel of an operating system. Linus Torvalds is the one that started the Linux kernel. Richard Stallman (RMS) had nothing to do with that. What is incorrect, but unavoidable these days due to marketing types and the press, is to call Linux an operating system. What makes an operating system is the kernel (boot code), drivers (may be in the kernel or modules) and additional software (the GNU project tools). Technically correct folks will call the blend of these parts GNU/Linux but the marketing and press types will continue to just use Linux. I believe we are not going to be able to change that trend here but we should be technically correct and give the correct people their due consideration. For Linux, the kernel, that would be Torvalds. --Gene 15:04, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Changes

I made some small changes as I thought that the article was a little confusing to somebody with no experience of Linux. I'll continue to edit the remainder of the article if nobody has any objections. --davidklein 14:45, 8 November 2007 (EDT)

• Thanks for your additions, David! --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 15:08, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I made several changes and added some clarification back in late November (2007) but did not notice this talk page at the time. I am rectifying that oversight today. --Gene 15:10, 20 December 2007 (EST)