From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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[1] 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)

I am wondering why we even need to refer to a so-called Satanic version of any operating system in an encyclopedia. I have not removed or edited anything to do with that (so far) but as far as I am concerned it is fluff information that is not germane to someone seeking information about Linux kernels or GNU/Linux distributions to use. Unless of course we want to tell folks it exists so they can go get a copy? --Gene 15:20, 20 December 2007 (EST)

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. [2]

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)
You can't have an operation system without the kernel. I can come very close to building a distro that uses next to no code developed by the FSF. Don't get me wrong, I love the FSF, but the whole GNU/Linux nomenclature rubs me the wrong way. --D3matt 22:51, 11 October 2009 (EDT)


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)

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)

On another point, several of the edits I made refer to external sites. Some of these could be brought inside Conservapedia when we create information filled pages for them. So far several of the internal page links I see on Conservapedia are very sparse. The one for Ubuntu is an example of what I mean. I am not knowledgeable about Ubuntu so I am not going to attempt to edit that page to add more content at this point. But if we are going to have internal referrals like these then the resulting pages should be more than a one liner. --Gene 15:36, 20 December 2007 (EST)


Yes, the free software movement is highly communistic, but only in the (anti)license model they use. If the license bothers you that much, you can always use a BSD clone. We really need to remove the quote by Steve Ballmer as he has a very strong motive to be against free software since it directly competes with M$ --D3matt 22:54, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Communism is not antithetical to conservative political theory, since conservative simply means keeping the status quo. A conservative in the USSR would be fore the continuation of the USSR. There is furthermore no fair overly-simplistic political parallel to GNU/Linux. There is a great and vibrant community of coders who do their work diligently and for no pay because the work needs to be done. This represents progress in the model of work ethics, in a more morally and genuinely responsible way. Your critique is quite frankly, silly.Edited by CIASupporter, the radical conservative ecologist. (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2015 (EDT) (Fixed your spelling of "Ballmer".)

Does it matter

Does it really matter that Richard Stallman is an atheist? How does that have any impact on whether or not his computer code works? Interesting trivia? Yes... Relevant to the article? No... TaylorF 10:06, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

We don't censor information here; we just present it. Stallman considers his atheism very important to him, and often speaks about it (he came to speak at my university) so we present that information and let the reader decide what to make of it. It's not a vote of confidence or a condemnation, just the facts. Does that help? Tyler Zoran Talk 10:10, 9 July 2010 (EDT)
I suppose I understand why it's there... just seemed a bit out of place in an article about a software project. Perhaps that fact should be moved the the article about Stallman himself instead of an article about software... Is that a workable thing? TaylorF 12:25, 9 July 2010 (EDT)
I believe it's already mentioned in that article. My personal preference would be to leave the GNU/Linux article how it is. It's a harmless piece of information about the project's founder. Also, many people that come to the site because of linkage from other conservative groups, through friends, etc, will probably come to the GNU/Linux article, not the Stallman article, so it makes sense to have it in the former as well. Tyler Zoran Talk 12:41, 9 July 2010 (EDT)


  1. [1]

Merger Request

Merger proposal

I propose that GNU/Linux be merged into Linux. I think that the content in the GNU/Linux article can easily be explained in the context of Linux, and the Linux article is of a reasonable size that the merging of GNU/Linux will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. It could also go the other way around (vice versa). Linux is properly called as an operating system GNU/Linux. Calling it simply Linux is like calling Windows NT Kernel (which nobody does). Edited by CIASupporter, the radical conservative ecologist. (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2015 (EDT)

Personal pronouns

In the second paragraph of Practical Overview, I see "Since this is Conservapedia, I think it should be said first that there is some alleged connection between Communism and GNU/Linux." I think pages (except for essays) are generally written in the third person. Anyone mind if I try to change this around a bit?--David B (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2016 (EST)