Talk:Linux

Homepage

The Homepage points to the Linux Kernel, not the Linux Operating System.

Either this Link should be replaced with an Link to the Linux Operating System or removed because this is misleading and confusing people with the Linux Kernel. ~2026-33470-5 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no such thing as one "Linux Operating System". There are multiple different distributions, all based on the Linux kernel. As the article says, "Thousands of Linux distributions exist". Meters (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

properly address the importance of the GNU project near the top of the article

Due to the prevailing role software from the GNU project plays in the present day systems, it is relevant to mention near the top of the page the importance of GNU software and it should not be relegated deep into the article. User:Aoidh undid a change to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux&oldid=1340569658 on the grounds that the GNU project is mentioned, however the importance and prevaling role of the GNU project is not communicated clearly communicated. Here is an analysis of the article up to the point where GNU is first properly addressed. GNU is first mentioned in regards to the naming controvercy, then later as a historical note as a reason Linux was started. Next GNU is mentioned along with 386BSD to point out that they do not have Unix code which is hardly relevant. The next time the word GNU appears is in the GNU General Public License which is not the same as GNU software, and so such mentions of GNU should be ignored for this issue. Then while GNU project is talked about in the history section, it under "Precursors" which does not indicate GNU's relevant role in present day systems. Again under the same history section this time under "Creation" there is vague talk about GNU having to do with the history of Linux and this does not speak to the present day prevailing use of GNU software. Under section "Development" there is the first real mention of the use of GNU software in these systems, however even here it does not clearly communicate the fact that most systems use GNU software. Finally it is in the "Design" section that the GNU userland is for the first time acknowledged as a key part of most of the systems. The fact is that most systems today use GNU software and the GNU project is absolutely relevant and worthy of mention at the top of the article to tie it to the systems using the Linux kernel. The GNU project is not a techical detail that belongs in the design section as the first time it is properly addrsssed as a "key part of most systems based on the Linux kernel", this belongs to the top of the article. ~2026-12746-18 (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1340569658 is the edit in question. Changing the target of Open source to Free and open-source software while making it look like the link still takes you to Open source is somewhat of an WP:EGG issue. Saying that Linux includes {{most commonly software from the GNU Project}} depends on what you consider "most commonly" to be, and is contradicted by other content in the lede and article. The obvious example is that Android (operating system) is by far the most commonly used Linux-based operating system (and is the most commonly used of any operating system: Usage share of operating systems), most versions of which contain little to no GNU software. The current text in the lede about emphasizing the use and importance of GNU software in many distributions already addresses GNU software (with sources) without the unsourced ambiguity about what "most common" might mean. - Aoidh (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The open source thing I did was a mistake. "Most" would mean most systems distributions. I accept that my contribution there was bad and I don't need my revision to be reinstated but I want this issue to be considered, however I will retain my stance as stated here in the Talk, that the GNU project is still important enough I believe it belongs to the top of an article. As I said GNU is not a technical detail to be hidden deep in the article. I realize Wikipedia has for better or worse taken a side on the GNU/Linux naming controversy, but I do not believe this is grounds to obfuscate the presence of GNU on the system which I perceive this article to be doing. GNU is a very real part of the scene. ~2026-12746-18 (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I dispute the existence of "Linux" as a family of operating systems

A. Linux is a kernel, which is a component of an operating system. Many operating systems use Linux, most of which are GNU systems (For further context see my proposal for GNU as a family of operating systems), however the Linux kernel is not the unifying characteristic that should be used to determine what OS family the software distribution falls into. Chronologically the GNU project came first and operating systems that derive from it naturally ought to be categorized in terms of their historical lineage as such, derivatives of the GNU Project, therefore the GNU family of operating systems. Other operating systems which use Linux but don't belong to the GNU family of operating systems, are simply Unix-like operating systems, not meaningfully a part of any particular OS family that I know of. Linux is a kernel Unix-like operating systems make use of.

B. I took a look at the archived page of the first citation after the pronunciation citation, 17. Linux#cite note-23 archived at archive.org and this citation on the Wikipedia appears to be a misquotation, on the Wikipedia page on the citation it says "The shared commonality of the kernel is what defines a system's membership in the Linux family; the differing OSS applications that can interact with the common kernel are what differentiate Linux distributions." But this is not what the archived source says! According to the that archive source on what is presumably page 33 it says "kernel The central, core program of the operating system. The shared commonality of the kernel is what defines Linux; the differing OSS applications that can interact with the common kernel are what differentiate Linux distributions" provided I didn't misspell anything. This is absolute nonsense, a blatant lie and a misquotation! First there is absolutely nothing about any "family" of operating systems in the source cited which makes this mis-citation, and second, this segment is used to define what "Linux distributions" are not a "Linux family". I argue there is a difference in the use of "Linux distribution" as a colloquial or casual term refer to operating systems making use of Linux, versus a technical categorization of operating system families.

C. Furthermore the archived source says that Linux is supposedly an operating system originated by Linus Torvalds, which is blatantly false, as the operating systems which use GNU software obviously share an older common origin dating back further into the founding of the GNU Project by Richard Stallman than any Linux kernel added in later. Essentially that sourced article is a misrepresentation, and a poor record of (or even intentional attempt at rewriting) history, thus I say an unreliable source. Linus Torvalds did not create an operating system, his work is not even what brought about any operating systems, his contribution was a kernel, a component that would be used to form complete system distributions out of Richard Stallman's GNU operating system.

D. To be clear, my case is that GNU is a family of operating systems. Since Richard Stallman did not complete his operating system where third party entities formed their own complete system distribution out of Richard Stallman's GNU Project, those independent distributions of software are thus distributions of the GNU family of operating systems because they historically derive from the software by the GNU Project + with the Linux added. Note that my argument here isn't on the GNU/Linux naming controversy, this is about the categorization of the GNU family of operating systems, and that there is no Linux family. My post here does not dispute the colloquial use of "Linux distribution" as a casual way to refer to any operating systems, I am disputing the existence of a supposed 'Linux family of operating systems'. I argue the historical lineage is what should be used to classify them under any families and umbrella terms. The historical lineage of the operating systems claimed to be a part of the Linux family of operating systems do not have their historical roots in the Linux kernel, therefore Linux has no claim for a family of operating systems, it is a component used in many different Unix-like operating systems. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

So the GNU family includes both Linux-kernel-based systems with userlands based on GNU software (and including other non-GNU software), Hurd-based systems based on GNU software (possibly including other non-GNU software), and possibly other systems.

The subset of the GNU family consisting of systems using the Linux kernel have features based on Linux kernel mechanisms that systems based on kernels lacking those features do not have; the same applies for the subset of systems using the Hurd, mutatis mutandis.

There are also system using the Linux kernel and a non-GNU-based userland, such as the one on the majority of smartphones out there. Those systems may have many of the same Linux kernel features that the ones with GNU-based userlands do, but will not have GNU-userland features not present in their userlands.

The Linux-kernel-based subset of the GNU family is a significant subset; you probably won't have, for example, cgroups in non-Linux-kernel-based members of that family. Guy Harris (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

That's essentially it. Let me further explain why and elaborate:

1. My line is that the historical lineage is what is mainly used to determine what OS family the system belongs in, minor technical variations aren't enough to sway that, so long as the overall design is similar. Differences do become relevant when the overall design differs too much (I'll elaborate on this later in the Android section of this post). You will notice for example if you look at the various *BSD systems that they have differing features from each other, yet they belong in the BSD family. OpenBSD is different from FreeBSD which is different from NetBSD etc.

2. The larger Unix-like family of operating systems (which GNU also belongs in), includes many operating systems which use the Linux kernel, they are all Unix-like because they follow a Unix-like design philosophy and behave as Unix. Most of the system distributions which make use of Linux just happen to be a part of the GNU family, but they don't have to be and there is no inherent connection. Let's look at one Alpine Linux as an example operating system which doesn't use GNU software but does use Linux, so what to make of that one might ask, well it's an Unix-like system and that's it. Unless there is a better categorization for Alpine I don't know of, and I argue Linux isn't one, then there is no more to it than that, it's just a Unix-like system among many. Linus Torvalds developed a kernel used on many Unix-like systems.

3. I do have doubts that Android qualifies as an Unix-like operating system though, to me it seems like Android shouldn't be called Unix-like, for more reading I also posted here. Android would thus be it's own independent operating system altogether, so it isn't Unix-like. This would mean Linux is also used on non-Unix-like operating systems as well, even if Android does contain Unix somewhere inside though, but that's not too important here as this is a different discussion whether Android is Unix-like. I point out here that Android at least does not support the case for "Linux as an operating system family" because Android is too different from the more Unix-like systems which I argue are the GNU family of operating systems, to be put in the same family.

In fact the technical composition and features do become relevant once they are great enough like the overall Unix-like design itself. Minor technical differences, are not important enough to warrant not putting the systems as a part of the same operating system family, in that even binary compatibility (ABI compatibility) for example is not expected from systems that are in the same OS family anyway. There is no established precedent that would suggest ABI compatibility is required for systems to qualify as a part the same family. Many Unix-like systems categorized to be in the same family are often binary incompatible and have many small differences in terms of features too, but here is the important fact, they all retain the same overall Unix-like design and fundamentally they all follow the Unix philosophy and also roughly work the same way. Which means the internal variations within the family are just the natural variations of the Unix design put in practice. It's only when a system strays off from the Unix design like how I see Android has done, that I would say such a system is no longer Unix-like and therefore it should not be included in another different OS family that is for Unix-like systems which is what the hypothetical "Linux family" would have to generally be.

If Android is determined not to be Unix but did hypothetically still somehow get included in the supposed Linux family, the Linux family would be so diverse and indeterminate as to be an incoherent mess, which isn't even entirely Unix-like anymore. I don't think sharing one OS component is enough to warrant the inclusion of a totally different OS design as a part of the same OS family. Basically put short, the Linux family would be too big (in terms of scope of different OS designs) if it included Android as a non-Unix system, which I say Android probably is that. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

This article is not the place to put forward novel arguments (WP:OR) that contradict what sources state (WP:NPOV) with regard to Android and any GNU family of operating systems. - Aoidh (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

A. "novel arguments" You are just calling it a name, I will point out that categorizing and classifying operating systems based on historical lineage is standard practice, and is not my original research. Me pointing out an error in many articles failing to follow such an established convention on Wikipedia, is not original research. Also an "Unix-like" operating system is a well established term and a concept in the world of computing, and is most definitely not my original research.

B. For me to point out that I am not convinced Android as being categorized under that "Unix-like" concept, is in fact supported by the lack of sources that show Android is Unix-like, rather than my "original research" suggesting it isn't Unix counter to some well established line. In that, who ever said Android is Unix-like? Even on the Wikipedia page on Android the term "Unix-like" appears twice (not counting the links near the bottom of the page), once as the 'OS family', and second time is literally an important figure disputing Android being Unix-like (according to the Wikipedia article itself). Actually, I would appreciate for you to show me the sources you speak of that show Android is in fact an Unix-like operating system. But I don't think I need to prove Android is not an Unix-like system, when given the context, the burden of proof to show it is Unix should be on those who wish to prove that. I can't actually on a quick glance see on the Wikipedia page on Android itself a good source saying it is Unix-like, so I ask you, what sources?

C. Also it is important to retain focus whilst discussing this, my argument is still on the Linux as an operating system family, the Android issue is only adjacent to my actual argument about the Linux as an OS family.

D. Whether GNU as an operating system family is "original research" is unclear to me, however, the way it seems to me is that Wikipedia made-up the Linux family of operating systems already as is, so to that end why accept Linux as a family but not the GNU? Again need I remind you, of what I said earlier, the instance of Linux as a "family" being cited on this article was literally a misquotation, the word "family" did not once appear in that archived source the citation pointed to, if that's the case in support of "Linux" as a family then how is that not original research? Softwareperson1000 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no issue with removing the "family" verbiage, which was added when the quote was altered in 2017. However, suggesting the addition of GNU family of operating systems would not comply with WP:NPOV given the lack of sourcing supporting that. As for the Android issue, this isn't the talk page to discuss issues with that article; I would suggest raising that issue at Talk:Android (operating system). - Aoidh (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

1. Fair enough on the Android thing to be raised as an issue on that other Talk page, however I did initially bring it up here because it is still relevant to my main argument on the "Linux family", because if Android is indeed included inside such a Linux family that causes trouble for that OS family concept itself, because that would mean this supposed OS family contains both Unix-like an non-Unix-like operating systems at the same time, which is nonsense.

2. Given you gave an OK to removing "family", I need to ask you, just how far does this go? In that many Wikipedia articles on the various operating system distributions, which make use of Linux, say that they are a part of the supposed Linux family. An example: Arch Linux on the article reads "OS family Linux (Unix-like)", there are no citations to back up the "family", and that word only appears that one time right there. I would either replace that with "GNU (Unix-like)" or simply "Unix-like". If GNU is found not to be a good option (continues in 4. of my post) then I am fine with "Unix-like" as the sole family.

3. So long as the 'OS family' should exist on these Wikipedia articles, for each operating system, there is a taxonomic need for some sort of such classification and therefore a name to call it. Now that I have presented my case for why "Linux" is wrong for such a use, something has to replace it. My main proposal for that replacement is the GNU family of operating systems because it is clear and evident that out there in the world there exists operating systems based on the use of GNU software and are historically derived from it as I see it.

4. The issue of GNU family as original research; I am open to that possibility that my proposal for the GNU family is in fact original research as per Wikipedia's definition, but I'd still like to argue in support of it. My understanding is that Wikipedia's rules are not intended to cause the editor to ignore basic common sense and ignore basic facts and reality and write false nonsensical statements and incorrect information based purely on a lack of good sources. The question is of which one takes priority, writing nonsensical statements into article so that one can adhere to the spirit of a reference site (as understood by the editor), versus writing an accurate record of human knowledge despite the lack of good sources, there is an inherent conflict in Wikipedia's mission in that sense. When there are no good sources at all for an article to exist in the first place, then that article should not exist as per the policy, however the presence of the articles on these OS systems is already justified, the only question here we have now is just the classification "OS family", specifically (which may already be a concept Wikipedia made up anyway (as used on Wikipedia in this form)). If it is determined that GNU is not a good option to replace "Linux", then I am willing to compromise and reach an agreement in saying it should then be just "Unix-like". Using just "Unix-like" then serves as a fallback for my argument here in opposition to the "Linux family", we can therefore dismiss the GNU issue here for now (I will still argue in favor of it elsewhere on a separate Talk page). So do we have an agreement then that each such Wikipedia page should reflect "Unix-like" as the sole 'OS family'? I am happy with that compromise and I'll drop the "GNU family" as an issue here on this Talk page for now, until I can find good sources for it in the future perhaps. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

GNU would not be an appropriate family for Linux distributions for several reasons. First, it is an unsourced label. Second, though all Linux distributions are based on the Linux kernel in some way, not all Linux distributions or Linux-kernel based operating systems use GNU software. This wouldn't be an improvement and would create issues where something like Alpine Linux wouldn't be considered the same family as Arch Linux, and Gentoo Linux may or may not be part of a GNU family depending on how you configure it. I cannot find any third-party reliable sources that state that GNU is a family of operating systems, and while the removed source did not contain references to Linux being a family of operating systems, I pulled out my old copy of the CompTIA Linux+ Study Guide (ISBN: 978-0-470-50384-3) and Page 2 states that Linux isn’t a single OS, but rather a family of OSs... and I've also found references to such online (e.g., ). Given that there are, in fact, sources supporting the family verbiage, I'd be interested in hearing User:Guy Harris's opinion on whether that should be restored. - Aoidh (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

A. I can find a few odds and ends of some miscellaneous instances of "GNU/Linux" being used as a "family". Also it doesn't have to be just "GNU" specifically, any similar variation (including GNU/Linux) essentially serves the same role for the context here to replace "Linux".

https://www.ubishops.ca/wp-content/uploads/bucstr-2014-001.pdf

https://www.iitj.ac.in/PageImages/Gallery/03-2025/IITJ_AR_2022_2023_English.pdf

https://blog.dataumbrella.org/juan-luis-opensource-journey

https://plusformacion.us/what-is-the-full-form-of-gnu/

https://digerty.com/guides/free-libre-and-open-source-what-does-that-really-mean-no-really-really/

Mageia as a notable example of an OS distribution calls itself an "operating system of the GNU/Linux family"

https://sourceforge.net/software/product/Mageia/

https://slashdot.org/software/p/Mageia/

B. Even if GNU wasn't the way to go, I still don't see why simply "Unix-like" isn't good? It's already "Linux (Unix-like)" on the many Wikipedia articles, simply dropping "Linux" would just leave "Unix-like" as the 'OS family', that's fine by me.

C. Regarding Gentoo, Gentoo is a project, that distributes many systems, you will find if you look into it, that not all Gentoo variants with it's Portage package even use Linux. So in fact, you are wrong in asserting that Gentoo must be in the same supposed "Linux" category as some of those others, Gentoo also distributes for other kernel bases. Also, let me bring you some news you might not yet be aware of: Gentoo has officially announced a GNU Hurd variant https://www.gentoo.org/news/2026/04/01/gentoo-hurd.html so Gentoo is not Linux. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

A few more:

https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2020/11/kubuntu-2004-lts-review-familiar-operating-system.html and https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2021/04/download-fedora-34-full-editions.html written by same person

https://hackaday.com/2019/11/05/will-the-real-unix-please-stand-up/

https://www.physics.ntua.gr/konstant/ComputationalPhysics/Book/ComputationalPhysicsKNA.html

As to whether you think these are any good as sources I don't know, but there certainly are some third party uses of "GNU/Linux" as a "family" Softwareperson1000 (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

For Linux as a family: the references seem good. I gave a look at https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4842-1392-6_3, but didn't check to see if any of the distributions he cited were "GNU/Linux" distributions as opposed to "some-other-userland/Linux" distributions.

For GNU as a family: Gentoo isn't the only case of an OS that's "GNU but not Linux", Debian/kFreeBSD was another case (according to https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/, development stopped in 2023). There are also, as noted, GNU/Hurd systems.

For Unix-like as a family: systems with a Linux kernel generally fall into that category, but they also form an interesting subcategory of that category, given that there are APIs that don't exist in other Unix-like systems, and daemons and command-line utilities that use those APIs. That's similar to macOS, which is not just Unix-like, it's a Unix(R), but there are APIs that aren't in other Unixes. (As far as I'm concerned, if you don't do at least one thing differently from other Unixes, you don't qualify as a Unix. :-)) It's listed in macOS as belonging to families Mac, Darwin, BSD, Unix-like, and Unix (the latter two could be considered redundant, as any system passing the Single UNIX Specification could be considered "Unix-like" as well as being a Unix(R). I'd say most Linux distributions could fit into "Unix-like", "Linux", and "GNU" if the latter two are considered OS families. Some might be "Linux" but not "GNU" if they don't have a GNU userland.

For Android as a Unix-like Linux distribution: Bionic has most, but not all, of POSIX implemented (https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/master/docs/status.md) - some of the exceptions appear to have been omitted for security reasons. Termux (https://termux.dev/en/) is an add-on that provides a terminal emulator and may also add some tools not shipped with Android.

For Gentoo: there are multiple systems using a GNU userland and Portage. The one that uses a Linux kernel could be considered a "Linux" or a "Linux distribution". The ones that use other kernels might be considered "GNU" systems but not "Linux" systems. The same applies to Debian. Guy Harris (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

A relevant discussion discussing the Linux (Unix-like) label on distros: Talk:Linux/Archive 52#Replace the 'Unix-like' field with 'Linux' or remove the field. - Aoidh (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

1. That's an interesting idea, of including more than one family as Guy Harris here suggested above, pointing to the example of MacOS, which has more than one entry there for 'OS family'. I hadn't thought of that. To me the issue was that having Linux is wrong, but it seems like a good idea to have more than one entry instead, that solves our problems. Since if GNU nor "Unix-like" alone are found to be any good, I will agree to a compromise such that more than one entry is included. So it would look like this with each distro falls into each separately as appropriate per system distribution, where ones which use both Linux and GNU are therefore in both families, GNU ones without Linux are GNU alone, and the Linux ones which aren't GNU are just Linux then. That makes sense and fixes the problem I perceive with Linux exclusively as the OS family. I still hold that as a priority for me "GNU" (or variations) should be the 'OS family', however indeed I don't see an issue with there existing an overlap with more than one family existing separately and simultaneously as with Mac OS which seems to set up a good precedent which should be followed, which I hadn't considered. So do we then have an agreement with the proposal of Guy Harris to have more than one family?

2. I must still point out, one single entry that covers each GNU, Linux, and Unix-like, still makes sense, to say "GNU/Linux (Unix-like)" which means for systems which use Linux but no GNU they are then just "Linux (Unix-like)" and systems with GNU but no Linux are "GNU (Unix-like).

3. From https://web.archive.org/web/20180615191615/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4842-1392-6_3 "The first Linux distributions were created from scratch, having only the Linux kernel and a bunch of dispersed tools (like the GNU Project ones) with which to work."

False, the GNU Project was never a project to develop a series of arbitrary system tools. Make note, that even the Hurd kernel was also already in development (1990) by the time Linus first released Linux (1991). While the Hurd kernel didn't get finished and thus didn't get any official release as early, the Hurd kernel is still older than Linux as a project, GNU can hardly be called a bunch of dispersed tools as it is was obviously developing a complete operating system, and was well on the way towards getting there. What happened, and this is a historical fact, is the early distro developers took the GNU Project which sought to make an operating system, threw in some third party software and a kernel, and out comes a Unix-like operating system which has it's historic roots tied to the GNU Project. For me to say that isn't in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, it is the accurate series of events in history as they played out. The historical roots tie the operating systems to the GNU Project irrevocably, and GNU should not be dismissed. I don't see why one should prefer such a source which obviously seeks to rewrite history, where that is not an accurate account of events. It was not a random series of coincidences for the developers of those early system distributions to just happen to run into a bunch of dispersed tools by coincidence and not recognize it was the GNU operating system, of which they formed the final complete system distribution out of.

4. I'll drop the Android issue Softwareperson1000 (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:VNT; saying that reliable sources are wrong based solely on your commentary and that this commentary should determine content is contrary to how the content of Wikipedia articles is determined. GNU/Linux is a minority term that is not the name of this article or the family of operating systems, as shown by reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

1. Your sources aren't reliable sources though, if they are obviously wrong in failing to recognize the key historic role the GNU Project played, which is a well recorded historical fact, or do you intent do dispute this? If the source depicts an interpretation of history which is proven false (such as asserting the Linux kernel was the founding point of the system distributions, as that one link Guy Harris pointed to did) when better record of history exist, such sources should be disqualified. There is also a question of politically motivated attempts at rewriting history in such bad sources, in removing mentions to the GNU Project as a controversial political entity many do not wish to have an affiliation to. Not wanting to affiliate with the politics of such an organization artificially warps the sources against the true prominence of the GNU project and it's relevance. So I question your sources on these grounds.

2. On another thing, in terms of pure numbers of how much popularity the "Linux" name has, I question the competency and familiarity random secondary source news paper website types would have on the technical nature of operating systems design, which is what the vast majority of support for the "Linux" name would inevitably end up being in terms of pure numbers, since the bigger popularity is the main argument in support of "Linux" after all. Being a secondary source, alone, is not a qualification to make one a reliable source. We are dealing with a technical matter which requires the opinion of people who understand the technical subject at hand, not the opinion of a news paper the only qualification of which is that they are a secondary source (which again in terms of pure numbers and popularity inevitably makes the most substantial portion of support). Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources cannot be discarded simply because they do not support your perspective on a topic. - Aoidh (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

1. Fortunately, they are not reliable sources, so we can dismiss them.

2. Well recorded historical facts are not my perspective.

3. Do you dispute the historical facts about the role the GNU Project played, in bringing about the various operating system distributions, specifically, as a series of events, where the system distribution developers took the GNU Project software started by Richard Stallman, and then formed out of it complete system distributions, using some other third party software in combination with the GNU Project's software?

4. If you do acknowledge that as an accurate and a well recorded series of events, then how do you reach the conclusion that any source which fails to recollect this accurate series of well recorded historical events and even contradicts that historical record, is in any way a reliable source? Contradicting well recorded historical facts should disqualify any such source as being reliable in relation to that issue then, or do you disagree with this? Being a 'secondary source' does not give a nonsense bad source a free pass according to the WP:NPOV, that's not the purpose of that policy, and you have misunderstood it if that's how you use it. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I do dispute the claim that "the system distribution developers took the GNU Project software started by Richard Stallman, and then formed out of it complete system distributions, using some other third party software in combination with the GNU Project's software." That's like saying that the architect who designed my house and the carpenters, etc. who built it share the credit with the wood from Georgia Pacific, the concrete from Quikrete, and the nails from Meite because they "formed out of them a complete dwelling." When you build something, the parts you buy and the tools you use don't get credit.

The GNU contribution to Linux was a bunch of small programs and a compiler -- parts and tools. GNU didn't create the small programs or the compiler. They copied and adapted the work of Bell Labs. What GNU really contributed -- the huge contribution that everyone has built on -- is the free-as-in-freedom license. That is the key creation that enabled everything else. The only reason most of the actual software made by GNU matters is because once someone makes a version of ls, mkdir, or pwd that work perfectly fine, nobody bothers reinventing the wheel.

The existence of a sawmill that performed a necessary step between a tree growing and the house I live in is also a historical fact. So is the steel mill and the cement factory. I can give you reliable sources for where nails and lumber come from. Everything is built on something else. That doesn't imply that the something else gets credit. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

1. You have now made an argument that is on the topic of who is given credit, but that is not the topic of discussion here. This topic is specifically on the technical designation of the 'OS family' entry on the Wikipedia page as well as the use of the "family" terminology used for the operating systems which use the Linux kernel and beyond. What name the system is generally referred to by, or, who is given credit is a separate matter entirely. Since your argument now seeks to dispute giving credit to GNU instead of addressing the actual family terminology and topic of this discussion in question, the GNU/Linux naming controversy and with it what the systems should be in general called and who is to be given credit being a separate issue, and with arguments on this thread not to be made one way or the other in support or in opposition of broader rewriting of articles such as to reflect one side or the other when referring to the system on that controversy (ie giving credit), I therefore, dismiss your argument on these grounds, and I don't want to hear more about the issue of giving credit.

2. However, I will still respond to your analog, the sawmill, cement factory and steel mill, and such things, are not a part of your house, are they? Such things were used throughout the process of building your house, but they weren't previous phases of, or previous iterations of, your house, and they certainly still aren't in your house nor a part of it. GNU software is still there (in your house) in the GNU operating system distributions today as a part of it, as well as being the historical and contemporary technical foundation and a framework for building the operating system, both. GNU therefore wasn't used to build an operating system and then discarded, it is the actual foundation of it on top of which the rest of the operating system currently exists. Also you can only push analogs so far. Here is another important counter argument within the other part of your analogs about the lumber used for building your house, which actually addresses the topic of OS families at hand this time, maybe the materials used in construction of your house, do, in fact, categorize your house. Maybe it's a house made of bricks, maybe some type of wood, perhaps concrete, or maybe your house is carved out of the stone on a cliff-side, categorization of your house in some metaphorical equivalent of 'OS family' in your analog, fits in perfectly. The "family" terminology escapes the analog perhaps, but as it turns out the house can be most certainly be categorized based on it's features and what it is built out of.

3. Lastly I'll mention that the part about no one wanting to replace the ls command and the like, because they can't be bothered to or whatever, is just entirely irrelevant and a total non-argument. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

That's like saying that the architect who designed my house and the carpenters, etc. who built it share the credit with the wood from Georgia Pacific, the concrete from Quikrete, and the nails from Meite because they "formed out of them a complete dwelling." When you build something, the parts you buy and the tools you use don't get credit. That would mean that neither the GNU project's software, the Linux kernel, or the other software would be credited. And, in fact, I usually see names such as "Red Hat" and "Fedora" and "Debian" and "Ubuntu" or..., not, for example, "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" or "Fedora Linux" or "Debian GNU/Linux" (Canonical don't even appear to speak of "Ubuntu Linux").

GNU didn't create the small programs or the compiler. They copied and adapted the work of Bell Labs. To be fair, what they copied and adapted were the external behavior of the Bell Labs programs and compiler; they reimplemented those from scratch. (It's not as if Stallman took the PCC source and made GCC from it.) They also significantly extended those behaviors. I.e., it's a reimplementation of Unix, not a new OS created from scratch. (And the extensions arguably are what make it a Unix - if you don't do at least one thing in your particular Unix that's not something other Unixes do, it's not really a Unix. :-))

Riiight. You started this thread with "my case is that GNU is a family of operating systems" but a response arguing that Linux is a family of operating systems and GNU is a collection of tools is "is just entirely irrelevant and a total non-argument". Not just something you disagree with, Not just something that is wrong. Entirely irrelevant and a total non-argument. Fine. I won't bother you with any further irrelevancies or non arguments. I will simply state that multiple reliable sources say that [A] Windows is a family of operating systems (Windows 3.11, Windows 2000, Witndows 7...) [B] BSD is a family of operating systems (FreeBSD, NetBST, OpenBSD. Ghost BSD...), and [C] Linux is a family of operating systems (Linux Mint, Slackware Linux, Tiny Core Linux...). To be fair, a google search did find two non-reliable sources that say "GNU/Linux family of operating systems" - the FSF and Wikipedia and one that says "Linux/GNU family of operating systems" (a public comment to a proposed law). I could not find a single source that says "GNU family of operating systems". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Some early userland-for-Linux history:

• Linus spoke of having ported bash 1.08 and GCC 1.40 to the Linux kernel in his announcement of said kernel. He did not say anything in that post about a C library.
• Some of his early postings speak of a "really minimal" library with "partially free" sources (so perhaps some parts came from the GNU C library, but the non-free parts obviously didn't), with "Earl Chews estdio" being used.
• At some point, apparently, developers forked the GNU libc to make the "Linux libc"; eventually, they used standard GNU libc. Other C libraries, such as musl, have also been used.
• What appears to have been the first Linux distribution for people other than complete Linuxheads, MCC Interim Linux, shipped with GNU utilities as well as some non-GNU utilities. This document for MCC Interim Linux doesn't say what C library is used, although it does mention the GNU C++ library.

So, yes, software from the GNU project was used early in Linux development. The original C library wasn't from GNU, and I don't think there was a GNU init at that point (according to https://www.oldlinux.org/Linus/, the mid-October 1991 release didn't even have init, it just came up single-user as root). Networking tools may have come from BSD. Guy Harris (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I will post here as a reply to yours Guy Harris, but with the intention of generally continuing the discussion without addressing any one specific editor individually, in fact I invite anyone to reply,, posting here, because what I will say ties directly into what has been said before in the above thread continuity.

1. As it is well recorded history, that the GNU Project was integral to the early distros and also what came after (note that Debian Manifesto reads "in the spirit of Linux and GNU", and Linus Torvalds earlier mentioned GNU in his announcement of Linux, therefore showing GNU wasn't seen as a mere set of tools they just accidentally stumbled on as some false and uninformed accounts would claim). [continues in the separate part 3. of my post] If GNU is supposedly only instrumental as a series of tools to develop a "Linux" family of operating systems, then how do you (you as in the supporters of that case) explain, how in your system the broader kernel offerings GNU systems make use of, fit in? See GNU variants here for context. Let's look at Debian GNU variants, there are more kernel offerings than one, of which FreeBSD and Linux had an official release, with Hurd still experimental but usable, and there are also several other more or less experimental and/or historical ports that didn't gain much success, where what each such option has in common is that each is obviously still Debian, and every time Debian uses the GNU userland, which together with Debian's package manager and it's overall design (as an Unix-like implementation) are what define Debian as an operating system. Debian is a part of the GNU family of operating systems because of it's historical lineage dating back to the founding of the GNU Project, with GNU also serving as a common unifying identity within the Debian ecosystem that ties all the different kernel branches together, the kernel being one interchangeable component. Debian thus, can not be a member of any "Linux" family, as proven by an official release of Debian using the FreeBSD kernel (note that being end-of-life is irrelevant, actively receiving updates is not required to be an operating system, many OS's never get updates). Question, how do you explain the presence of Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and still support a "Linux" family of operating systems at the same time, when there is such a glaring contradiction and/or an exception made where somehow different versions of Debian aren't in the same family, or either you would automatically insert Debian as a whole into the "Linux" family without giving further thought to the other kernels Debian also has?

Notice that Debian is currently, correctly designated as being "Unix-like" in the 'OS family' of it's Wikipedia article, which means this adds further support for my case in providing established precedent in favor of such categorization "Unix-like" for similar system distributions (with "Unix-like" being a compromise I said earlier I would agree to, to remove "Linux" as the family). The same should be done I argue, for other similar GNU derived systems which use Linux, even if they do provide alternative kernels to Linux, on the basis that the fundamental framework of those other similar operating system distributions is essentially the same, as is shown by some distros like Guix System and Gentoo with their introduction of Hurd kernel variants (Gentoo especially having broad Unix-like support with their package manager), and the Arch Hurd project, they all belong in the same family and Wikipedia's 'OS family' should reflect that. So I argue therefore that OpenSUSE or Mageia or Slackware as an examples of operating system distributions, are not that dissimilar from Debian, so therefore they should all belong in the same OS family on Wikipedia, which currently they are not assigned as such in 'OS family'. So in fact, there already does exist an inconsistency on Wikipedia as a malpractice of poor standardization and categorization, before I even started this argument, where applying my argument will fix this. This current state of things with it's current inconsistencies also further supports my case in showing the "Linux family" has failed, and does not in fact work because it causes such inconsistencies and has such a poor track record to show for it.

Furthermore, that inconsistent application of 'OS family' present in Wikipedia now, supports my other side-argument within this larger debate, that this is a nonsense made-up concept on Wikipedia to begin with, "OS family", which means my opponents can not pull the Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point Of View against me on this issue in an attempt to evade my argument, as has been done several times on this thread so far, when this whole premise of "OS family" as it is de-facto applied on wikipedia is already a made-up concept which the original editor who presumably thought of it, would have already been the original violator of that WP:NPOV policy. Therefore such attempts to police the WP:NPOV against me now, would indicate seletive enforcement of that policy against those who object to the idea, but the original support of that concept of "Linux" as an 'OS family' is not subject so such policy enforcement. However, with that said, I do not object to there being 'OS family', what I object to, is selective policy enforcement and having inaccurate nonsense information on the 'OS family', which I seek to correct by making this case here.

2. With all this here, I say, my system works, and fixes exsiting problems. I have what is a consistent system where Debian as an example is always a member of the GNU operating system family, regardless of the specific kernel offering in question (or "Unix-like" instead of "GNU" as a compromise), Fedora and all the others belong in the same family, Alpine is just Unix-like, whereas your system (supporters of "Linux family) would have holes, gaps, be riddled with inconsistencies, and would require the likes of massive double standards when considering the broader scope of Unix-like operating systems and beyond, where it is not well established precedent to pay this much attention to the kernel specifically (you are treating Linux as a special snowflake, and with that making arguments which only make sense in the immediate proximity (if even that much) of Linux, while these operating systems in question are a part of a broader scope of the Unix-like sphere).

I argue you (supporters of "Linux family") do not have a holistic case in support of your claim, yours being myopic and Linux centered, but I have a full case which makes sense in a broader context and fixes existing problems. I argue the historical facts, as well as the established precedent in the Darwin and especially the BSD family of operating systems conventionally being seen as such, are against your case of "Linux" family, thus on the grounds as explained in this post, and including on the basis of the existing questionable state of the 'OS family' on Wikipedia, I declare, that such sources which contradict the well recorded historical facts regarding the GNU Project's relation to the system distributions using it's software and/or the well established precedent in categorizing operating systems families based on the historical lineage as with the BSD family, as unreliable sources which can not be used to support the case for a "Linux family" of operating systems.

3. GNU was not a means to an end, to make such an assertion that GNU was merely a series of miscellaneous tools that were used to build an operating system, is entirely arbitrary, and more importantly, it is based on personal motivations to say so, as in, to say from a certain point of view what the perceived motivation behind using the GNU software was, therefore that violates the WP:NPOV. Statements made from a biased point of view regarding the motivation, therefore are not based on actual historical facts or technical facts regarding the nature of the operating systems, such arguments can therefore be dismissed as being against the policy. GNU was it's own Project to form a complete operating system, where GNU Project already had it's own kernel in the works well before Linux, 1990 versus 1991. GNU having it's own kernel proves (one proof among others) it is not a set of tools, but a development effort to form a complete operating system. As such, it is then a fact to point out, that any third party who then forms and distributes a complete operating system derived from the use of such software from that Project, is therefore obviously doing just that, forming a complete operating system distribution based around the use of software from that Project, in other words, they are completing as a derivative work an operating system which the GNU Project sought to make using their software. There is the historical lineage, and thus the established precedent as with the BSD family, the GNU Project is the original Berkeley Unix equivalent in the comparison. The distro developers did swap out the kernel from GNU Project's one for another, had they not swapped that one component, there wouldn't be a case for any "Linux" family. Therefore the only support the "Linux" family idea has is that the supporters of it have to artificially over-inflate the importance of the fact that the distro developers use a different kernel as that component of the operating system. The kernel is a component of an Unix-like operating system which is interchangeable, as the Debian GNU/x variants show. The kernel is important to the function of an operating system alright, but it's not that important that it trumps everything else and to become the single deciding factor. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

correction: instead of neutral point of view having been pulled against me several times, WP:NPOV twice and WP:OR and WP:VNT have been suggested against me. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Addition of "GNU/Linux" as an alternate name in the beginning of the introduction, after the term "Linux".

I find appropriate to insert "also known as GNU/Linux" in the first paragraph, after the term "Linux", because it is a widely used term, (as you can see in theses references: ) used by many distributions, including Debian, a major one. An argument to not include it is that the term is utilized in other parts of the article, such as in the second paragraph, but I disagree with that. If a layperson stumbles upon the term GNU/Linux across the internet, thinks of it as a distribution or something else rather than a synonym for "Linux," and searches for it on Wikipedia, they will probably land on the Linux article. However, they might get confused and uncertain because the term is not present at first glance in the article, think they are on the wrong page, and simply leave.

Also, I don't see any reason not to include such a minor addition which will bring significant encyclopedic value and increase interest in the article. Having it present at the beginning might make the user curious as to why it is used and encourage them to go deeper into the article. The only "reason" I might find for it not being present is paid editors by corporate entities trying to reduce the visibility of the GNU project, because of its anti-proprietary nature. — Victor Matheus Amaral 21:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to make negative speculations about the motives of others without evidence; see WP:ASPERSIONS. But if it will help, I can attest that I am not being paid nor have I ever been paid to edit Wikipedia in any way for any reason or to promote or advance any interest. If you have evidence about paid editing, that should be submitted to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. The placement in the lede follows policy (WP:NPOV) and the Manual of Style (MOS:LEADCLUTTER) in that it does not give a disproportionate amount of weight to a name that most third-party reliable sources do not typically use and avoids cluttering the first sentence with parentheticals and alternate names. - Aoidh (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I find that the guideline you provided supports the inclusion of "also known as GNU/Linux" in the first paragraph. According to it, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources, and as shown by the references above, GNU/Linux is a widely used and recognized term, which supports its presence in the first paragraph.

I also find that the argument against its inclusion, that the term is already used in other parts of the article, is directly contradicted by the guideline itself, which explicitly states that this should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage between the lead and the body of the article. Since the term is present in the body but not in the first paragraph, the discrepancy should be resolved by adding it to the lead, not the other way around.

I find it inaccurate to claim that the references provided are not reputable resources. IEEE Xplore, PubMed Central, and the ACM Digital Library are among the most reputable peer-reviewed academic resources available, they are considered the best in their respective fields, backed by major professional and governmental institutions such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and the Association for Computing Machinery. I don't see any reasonable basis for dismissing them as non-reputable.

I also find it inaccurate to claim that I cast any aspersion. I did not make any claim that any user is a paid editor, nor did I affirm that was the case or mention any user in particular. I simply pointed out that the only reason I could find for the exclusion of such a minor and well-supported addition would be the influence of paid editors in general, which is a known concern on Wikipedia and not a personal accusation directed at anyone. As such, I find that your accusation is not only unfounded but factually inaccurate, looking more to get off-topic than to address the actual argument. — Victor Matheus Amaral 22:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Just as a starting point to address the initial demand. I think that a person could be confused by not finding "GNU/Linux" in the first paragraph to be extremely unlikely. --McSly (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not agree with that claim. As demonstrated by the references provided, GNU/Linux is a widely used and recognized term, which makes the possibility of confusion far from "extremely unlikely." A layperson encountering the term across the internet and landing on the Linux article without finding it at first glance is a realistic scenario, not an unlikely one, especially considering that GNU/Linux is marked as a "nickname" of the Linux article in Wikidata. — Victor Matheus Amaral 00:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Coming here from Portal:FOSS: The first sentence seems like the wrong place to introduce "GNU/Linux". I think it would be clear to mention the GNU Core Utilities in the lead somewhere appropriate (currently they aren't covered in the lead) and to mention the alternative name "GNU/Linux" after that point. "Linux" and "Unix" are well-known names, but I don't encounter people in person who ever mention GNU. I also think it's more confusing than helpful to even mention the naming dispute in the lead as it will not impact most readers. Since this article, to an extent, covers Android, it would introduce a lack of clarity about whether Android uses GNU's coreutils. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not proposing to include the naming dispute itself in the first paragraph, only the alternative name, which is standard practice in Wikipedia articles. The naming dispute is a separate topic and should not be confused with a simple mention of a widely recognized alternate name.

As for the concern about Android and GNU Core Utilities, that is a separate issue that can be addressed in the body of the article, and is not a reasonable basis for excluding a widely used alternate name from the first paragraph. — Victor Matheus Amaral 01:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I noticied that you think the term "GNU/Linux" strictly imply that every or the majority of the components of a distribution must come from the GNU project. The name reflects a historical and foundational fact: the GNU project, developed the essential tools, including the GNU Compiler Collection, the GNU C Library, Bash, and the GNU Core Utilities, that made a complete, functional operating system possible. When Linus Torvalds released the Linux kernel in 1991, it was combined with these pre-existing GNU tools to form a complete system. Without the GNU project, there would have been no complete operating system to pair with the Linux kernel in the first place.

The name GNU/Linux therefore acknowledges this historical contribution, not a strict inventory of present components. Just as one does not strip a country of its name because it has modernized its infrastructure, a distribution does not cease to be GNU/Linux simply because it has replaced certain GNU components with alternatives. The GNU project laid the foundation upon which the entire Linux ecosystem was built, and that contribution remains relevant regardless of whether a particular distribution still ships every GNU tool today. This is precisely why major distributions such as Debian explicitly recognize and use the term GNU/Linux. — Victor Matheus Amaral 01:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I will also point out, that in the widely recognized "BSD family" of operating systems, there are internal differences between each, and importantly, changes that have been made to the systems over time such that projects like FreeBSD and OpenBSD and NetBSD have diverged in substantial ways from the original Berkeley's Unix distribution's source base, and yet, no one ever disputes the fact that the BSD systems are a part of the BSD family lineage, just because some software has been rewritten along the years. So the BSD example supports the case that the historical lineage takes precedent over the specific technical composition of the system, so long as the same overall general Unix-like design remains intact. The BSD systems are still BSD and no one disputes that, hence the GNU systems which use Linux are still GNU too. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think having it in the second paragraph (as it always was) is enough. As you mention, LeadRel says facts in lede should be ordered by proportionate coverage, and the "GNU/Linux" part has nowhere near the coverage of the other facts in the first paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think moving it to the lede is necessary. The second paragraph already details the Linux vs. GNU/Linux distinction, and I would guess that the vast majority of current secondary sources refer to the operating system as Linux. I've been working on Copy Fail, so here's a few reliable examples of of secondary coverage about that:

- https://www.theverge.com/tech/922243/linux-cve-2026-3141-copy-fail-exploit

- https://arstechnica.com/security/2026/04/as-the-most-severe-linux-threat-in-years-surfaces-the-world-scrambles/

- https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/an-hour-of-scan-time-is-all-it-took-copy-fail-flaw-impacts-all-linux-kernels-released-since-2017-so-patch-now-or-face-the-consequences

At no point is "GNU/Linux" mentioned, despite one of the key issues of this bug being rollout by distributions rather than anything on the kernel side. As much as "GNU/Linux" may be more accurate to describe the process of its creation and use, to my knowledge secondary sources primarily use "Linux" to refer to the operating system, and we are not here to right great wrongs. Eyesinthefire (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you got confused, this article is about the family of Linux operating systems, not the kernel itself. The copy fail vulnerability was present exclusively in a module of the kernel, that's why the only term utilized was "Linux". I also know that the majority of times the term utilized by secondary sources is "Linux", because it's simpler, but it does not diminish the fact that the term GNU/Linux is also widely used to refer to the family. — Victor Matheus Amaral 02:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't get it confused. I'm aware the vulnerability is in the Linux kernel. Every one of those articles talks about it as a vulnerability of the operating system "Linux"/"GNU/Linux" and the distribution of the operating system is vital to the coverage of the bug, as described in those articles.

GNU/Linux is also widely used to refer to the family - where? Debian and the FSF, certainly, but as far as I'm aware not widely in reliable secondary sources. Eyesinthefire (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is sporadically mentioned in secondary sources, but it still is. And also, if it is such an "obscure" name, why is there a discussion on Wikipedia about this topic from time to time? And if a term "so unused" and should not be included, why do main articles like Saint Petersburg have older, absolutely obsolete and by far not used terms like "Petrograd" and "Leningrad" in the beginning of the first paragraph and written in bold? This example is one of many — Victor Matheus Amaral 03:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Even PERSIA is used as an alternate name in Iran. Find an article of a reliable source talking about modern Iran that uses the term "Persia" — Victor Matheus Amaral 03:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This also happens in articles about software. For example, Android has AOSP in bold in the beginning of the second paragraph, even though it is strictly a technical name and not widely used by reliable secondary sources. — Victor Matheus Amaral 03:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a good example because that is an alternate name being described in context within the second paragraph of the article, which this article currently does appropriately with GNU/Linux, which is also presented in boldface when it is introduced. - Aoidh (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While this comparison is very apples to oranges because that those examples are largely transitional name changes rather than the promotion of an alternative name, it was very easy to find sources calling modern Iran by the name of Persia such as this article going into great detail about Persia (Iran) as a concept, place, and identity, and why Western cultures use that word. - Aoidh (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not used as "Iran". I am arguing against his claim that the term should not be included just because it is not widely used. — Victor Matheus Amaral 03:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

And how much time will it take for Saint Petersburg to get rid of a 1920s name? — Victor Matheus Amaral 03:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The term GNU/Linux is already included, in a way very similar to your Android/AOSP example above and in keeping with WP:NPOV. An historical name for Saint Petersburg which was the common name for the city during one of the most important periods of Russian history has nothing to do with a minority alternative name of GNU/Linux which has never been the common name in any way, historically or presently. That is not comparable, and if you believe Petrograd is an issue, the solution is to start a discussion on Talk:Saint Petersburg, but it's not relevant to this topic in any way. - Aoidh (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

There is an important argument, most people here seem to have not considered that I will say: Casual use of the "Linux" name, does not need to dispute the use of "GNU/Linux", in fact "GNU/Linux" can be seen as a more technical term, that is more proper in such a context. Where despite the numbers, "Linux" can be seen as a mere casual way to refer to the system, thus as such it does not seek to undermine the use of "GNU/Linux". This means the larger numbers and popularity in favor of "Linux" do not actually support the argument that "GNU/Linux" should be dismissed on the basis that "GNU/Linux" is less popular, since after all the reason "GNU/Linux" appears less often is because it is a more proper, technical term, and thus reserved for such a more technical context. Being a well established alternative technical term, even if not used amongst the masses, still makes it a perfectly valid term to refer to the system by. And this is not a matter of including any pointers to some controversy. "GNU/Linux" is what Kalium, is to Potassium, it is a well established technical, more proper term, despite the casual use being something else. There is strong reason to include such a term in the lead of the article, as with Potassium and Kalium as an analog. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Attempting to redefine "Linux" as casual and "GNU/Linux" as technical in order to justify giving disproportionate weight to that term is both not reflective of reliable sources, and would be an WP:NPOV issue, a Wikipedia policy which is non-negotiable. - Aoidh (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

1. You have not cited which part of the policy what I said would violate, the document is substantial enough in size such that pointing to it broadly without referring to any specific part of it, is too vague to mean anything. Unless you can actually say with substance what is wrong with the specific argument made, then you are just pointing fingers at policies. This does not demonstrate a deeper understanding of the policy to make such surface level claims.

2. Consider this; interpretation is inseparable from competent reading, for instance language proficiency, when properly measured takes into account the ability to comprehend the information presented with, to comprehend is to understand, which is to correctly interpret the meaning. Take for as an example the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and pay attention to the part C1 level, where it says "implicit meaning"... implicit in the use of "Linux" as a term, is that it is often targeted towards the general population who are for one reason or another seen to be more comfortable or familiar with it than the more technical term. I am not in violation of any policy in proposing, an alternative interpretation. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I have prepared here miscellaneous examples I have quickly gathered up since having posted earlier, to support my own argument in that post. I don't care if the surrounding issue regarding the original post already died or maybe not, but I'll post this here still as a reply to myself for anyone interested for future use. There is no particular order or implied fitness for particular purpose for the following links I am about to provide, here is a random assortment of examples proving a well established interchangeable use of "GNU/Linux" and "Linux" out there in the world.

with also some sparse mentions of "GNU/Linux" here

And each of these one way or another literally state that either for the purposes of that text alone, or in general, "GNU/Linux" is basically the same as "Linux", either that "Linux" a shortening of "GNU/Linux" or just referring to within the scope of that article "hereafter" as one or the other stating they are equivalent. They basically either some state directly or others imply "GNU/Linux" is the more proper technical term where "Linux" is just the short version. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This discussion resulted in a now closed RFC, in which the consensus was overwhelmingly to not include GNU/Linux in the lede. Eyesinthefire (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The RfC was ill-prepared. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Softwareperson1000 or any other is welcome to reopen it, I'm just summarizing the consensus reached on this topic outside this thread. Eyesinthefire (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd advise discussing a new RfC before opening it. The original RfC was framed in an odd way, and another RfC framed in a similar way would almost certainly have the same outcome. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if I get this wrong, but is this proposal about making this article exclusively about Linux distributions that use GNU userland and to exclude non-GNU userland distributions? And if so, are we gonna have a separate "Linux (non-GNU)" article or what? Betseg (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Having a separate "GNU/Linux" article looks viable. It is a prominent term that is difficult to insert into the article because of some editors aesthetic preferences. — Victor Matheus Amaral 17:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not saying this to necessarily oppose what you said, however I will just point things out so you can make an informed decision on what idea to push for, that there already exists a ton of pages and it's (to my opinion) already too many. There are for some reason separate 3 articles for Linux; Linux, Linux distribution, and Linux kernel. And there are also 3 pages for GNU; GNU, GNU Project, and GNU variants, the separation of GNU Project versus GNU as an operating system is at least justified, but adding yet another article for GNU/Linux seems like to me to introduce way too much clutter into an already existing mess. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you. There is no reason to create other article, because this issue can be simple solved by including "sometimes called GNU/Linux" in the lead — Victor Matheus Amaral 17:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Linux is not called "GNU/Linux" sometimes. Linux distributions that use GNU userland are called GNU/Linux sometimes. So, @Victor Matheus Amaral: I repeat my previous question, are you intending to make this article exclusively about the Linux distributions that use GNU userland, and exclude other distributions by potentially making a separate article about them? Betseg (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

For sure not. It was never my intent. This article is about the family of Linux operating systems, the ones with GNU and without GNU, even the ones that do not consider themselves as Linux distributions, such as Android — Victor Matheus Amaral 16:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Summary of this discussion

I find it appropriate to include "sometimes called GNU/Linux" after the term "Linux" in the lead, and to better develop the contribution of the GNU Project in the development of Linux in the body of the article. To back my proposal, here are some arguments:

1. It is often used by reliable secondary sources: https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/1816884, https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/what-is-gnulinux, https://www.linux.com/news/what-is-gnu-linux/, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4116781/, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4408913/, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1021064, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6716407

2. It is used by Debian, a major Linux distribution: https://www.debian.org/releases/forky/amd64/ch01s02.en.html

3. It is used by many other distributions.

4. It increases interest in the article because someone might get curious about why the term is used and "go deeper".

5. If a layperson stumbles upon the term "GNU/Linux" across the internet, thinks of it as a distribution or something else rather than a synonym for "Linux," and searches for it on Wikipedia, they will probably land on the Linux article. However, they might get confused and uncertain because the term is not present at first glance in the article, think they are on the wrong page, and simply leave.

6. It is the preferred term by the GNU Project, the FSF, and adherents of the free software movement.

7. It is not against the will of the creator: "It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much continue to call it 'Linux' ... The GNU people tried calling it GNU/Linux, and that's ok. It's certainly no worse a name than 'Linux Pro' or 'Red Hat Linux' or 'Slackware Linux' ... Lignux is just a punny name — I think Linux/GNU or GNU/Linux is a bit more 'professional' myself, but I'm not going to get gray hairs about this."

8. It is a long-standing discussion in the Linux article that could end with a simple mention in the lead.

My arguments are backed by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."; "The lead is the first thing most people read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read."; "Significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages."

They are also backed by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."; "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts; (I provided IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library and PubMed Central; I also provided from PCMag and Linux.com (they are often used in Linux articles))

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; (GNU Project, the FSF, Debian, many other distributions, and the free software community, which are a significant part of the Linux community.)

Excluding "GNU/Linux" from the lead while it is used by reliable secondary sources is editorially biased, because it favors one naming convention over another without encyclopedic justification beyond aesthetics.

Some main Wikipedia articles that have less used and historical names in the lead:

Saint Petersburg have "Petrograd" and "Leningrad".

Iran have Persia.

macOS have OS X and Mac OS X.

VLC have "sometimes abbreviated as VMP".

iOS have iPhone OS.

There are many other examples...

Some disclaimer against a common argument people try to use to get off topic: The term "GNU/Linux" does not imply that the majority of a Linux distribution's software should come from the GNU Project, it just asserts the historical fact that GNU was the foundation upon which Linux built itself. But this discussion is not about how important GNU is; it is about how often the term "GNU/Linux" is used to warrant inclusion in the first paragraph, and how it increases the encyclopedic value of the article. And still, the majority of distributions still use core softwares that are part of GNU project like grub, coreutils, glibc and gcc — Victor Matheus Amaral 17:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not a summary of this discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and you know this is a summary of my arguments, because I said before that I would create one. I just forgot to make it clear in the title. You all need to stop resorting to fallacies and senseless comments to try to get off-topic. — Victor Matheus Amaral 18:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not even a summary! Eyesinthefire (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, start resorting to more fallacies, like this one you used, because you do not have more counterarguments — Victor Matheus Amaral 18:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Calling it a summary of the discussion is flatly false. It is a reiteration of your argument. As your stated yourself in the opening paragraph "To back my proposal, here are some arguments". --McSly (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep nitpicking instead of counterarguing against the arguments I provided, it just proves my claim — Victor Matheus Amaral 19:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I already said this is not a summary of the discussion, but just of my arguments, and you can see it because it is directly above. There is no reason for you to say something I ALREADY diminished — Victor Matheus Amaral 19:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Instead of continuing with this desperate use of fallacy, please just assume you all lost the resources. — Victor Matheus Amaral 19:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The proper name is Apache/Busybox/GNOME/GNU/Java/KDE/LILO/LLVM/Mozilla/Perl/Slackware/TeX/Minix/Xorg/Xfree386/Linux

The following is licensed under Creative Commons CC0. No rights reserved.

• "One so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the 'freedom to choose any license you want for software you write'." --Richard M. Stallman ( https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html )

• "There are lots of people on this bus; I don't hear a clamor of support that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't take a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine, or the seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus." --Jim Gettys ( https://lwn.net/1999/0408/a/gettys.html )

If You think the Linux family of operating systems should be called GNU/Linux, you really should insist on calling it (in alphabetical order):

 Apache/Busybox/GNOME/GNU/Java/KDE/LILO/LLVM/Mozilla/Perl/Slackware/TeX/Minix/Xorg/Xfree386/Linux

It is disrespectful to attempt to put GNU's contributions to the Linux family of operating systems (yes, Linux is a family of operating systems, not just a kernel) above the work of all the other contributors.

Please read "How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux?" ( http://pedrocr.pt/text/how-much-gnu-in-gnu-linux/ )

• "Figure 1 shows the total lines of code in Ubuntu split by the major projects that produce it. By this metric GNU software is about 8%. I didn't include GNOME in the GNU category because it seems to now be effectively run outside of GNU but including that the total for GNU would be around 13%."

• "I found two things to be astounding in this chart. The first is that the kernel is actually comparable in size to all the GNU software. The second is that small projects actually dominate the total amount. It seems that at least for what Ubuntu packages, the origin of the software is highly dispersed."

On the subject of how "essential" GNU is to the Linux family of operating systems, the most popular version of Linux is simply called "Android". Care to guess what percentage of Android is GNU? Hint: Google has a strong anti-GNU policy that has led them to replace every single GNU component with non-GNU alternatives.

Far from GNU being the indispensable component that the GNU/Linux advocates insist it is, it turns out that making a Linux OS without GNU is not only possible, but has been done multiple times. GNU software is convenient -- it is usually far easier to simply use the GNU component than looking for an alternative -- but in no way is it "essential".

Non-GNU Linux Distributions do exist. Chimera Linux, for example: ( https://www.phoronix.com/news/BSD-LLVM-Linux-Alpha-Coming ) Also Alpine Linux ( https://alpinelinux.org/ ) and, unless I am mistaken, Tiny Core Linux ( http://www.tinycorelinux.net/ ).

For those still unconvinced, I highly recommend reading all three chapters of Labyrinth of Software Freedom: BSD vs GPL and social aspects of free licensing debate ( http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/License_classification/index.shtml ) by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I already argued against this 'way of thinking' in a previous comment in this topic, but I'll publish it again: "I noticied that you think the term "GNU/Linux" strictly imply that every or the majority of the components of a distribution must come from the GNU project. The name reflects a historical and foundational fact: the GNU project, developed the essential tools, including the GNU Compiler Collection, the GNU C Library, Bash, and the GNU Core Utilities, that made a complete, functional operating system possible. When Linus Torvalds released the Linux kernel in 1991, it was combined with these pre-existing GNU tools to form a complete system. Without the GNU project, there would have been no complete operating system to pair with the Linux kernel in the first place.[17]

The name GNU/Linux therefore acknowledges this historical contribution, not a strict inventory of present components. Just as one does not strip a country of its name because it has modernized its infrastructure, a distribution does not cease to be GNU/Linux simply because it has replaced certain GNU components with alternatives. The GNU project laid the foundation upon which the entire Linux ecosystem was built, and that contribution remains relevant regardless of whether a particular distribution still ships every GNU tool today. This is precisely why major distributions such as Debian explicitly recognize and use the term GNU/Linux." — Victor Matheus Amaral 02:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, this discussion is not about whether the GNU Project is or was important in the development of Linux, but whether the term "GNU/Linux" is used enough to be included in the first paragraph, which it is. — Victor Matheus Amaral 02:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It was a bad argument when you made it before and it has not gotten any better. Feel free to post an RfC if you think the Wikipedia community agrees with you.

Name three other examples where a software project gets another name tacked on to the front of it -- against the wishes of the author of the software, I might add -- just because they used a compiler written by someone else. Name one. And why GNU? Why mot MINIX? or MicroEmacs? or POSIX? It was MINUX that "laid the foundation upon which the entire Linux ecosystem was built." GNU was just a tool. You might as well call The Golden Gate Bridge the McClintic-Marshall/Golden Gate Bridge because McClintic-Marshall supplied most of the tools and material used to build the bridge.

As far as how often term "GNU/Linux" is used, it is not and never was the WP:COMMONNAME. Yes, the Free Software Foundation has had a bit of minor success trying to hijack the name "Linux". But that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people call it "Linux". See the names here: --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

macOS have OS X and MAC OS X, in bold in the first paragraph. Android have AOSP in bold in the beginning of second paragraph. VLC media player have VideoLAN Client and VMP (I never seen NOBODY using this term) in the first paragraph. Do you want more? — Victor Matheus Amaral 03:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

And the term GNU/Linux is not against the "will" of Linus Torvalds, as he himself stated: "It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much continue to call it 'Linux' ... The GNU people tried calling it GNU/Linux, and that's ok. It's certainly no worse a name than 'Linux Pro' or 'Red Hat Linux' or 'Slackware Linux' ... Lignux is just a punny name — I think Linux/GNU or GNU/Linux is a bit more 'professional' myself, but I'm not going to get gray hairs about this." — Victor Matheus Amaral 03:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, do not make use of cheap rhetoric to diminish my arguments like in "It was a bad argument when you made it before and it has not gotten any better". I will make a summary of my arguments, so you can tell exactly, giving an explanation and not simply asserting, why they are "bad". — Victor Matheus Amaral 05:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

1. This is an old tired argument about the naming controversy that has been falsified a million times. Repeating it demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of computer science and of operating systems. The reason GNU is in the name is because that's the name the man who started the project gave it. That's the simplest way to put it, but I will elaborate, projects that descend from the original GNU Project distribute a completed GNU operating system distribution, they finished what Richard Stallman started and thus their work is a part of the GNU family of operating systems. What you don't seem to realize is that as far as the "GNU/Linux" naming controversy is concerned, it is in fact "Linux" which is the part that is added in, after "GNU", not the other way around. On that topic of the naming controversy, my stance is that if you want to use a single name to call the system, then that's just "GNU". GNU is the original foundation onto which any such operating system distribution was built, and Linux is a kernel, which is a component an operating system makes use of. Because GNU was the foundation, the name is inherited, because it's the historical lineage that's key to this issue, names are inherited. The complete system distributions that ship the GNU Project onto the desktop and beyond, inherit the name from the GNU Project, because they took on the GNU Project and completed it. That's why I also argue, that GNU is not an operating system, it is a family of operating systems, Debian is an operating system, a part of the GNU family. For more reading, see my proposal for The GNU family of Operating Systems

2. Android is obviously not a GNU system, so it should be automatically exempt from this entire topic of inserting the "GNU/Linux" name to systems. Why should you still bring it up in this context in this day and age I don't know. We all know Alpine and Android aren't GNU systems, that doesn't mean the systems which are GNU, shouldn't be called that, just because other operating systems exist, which happen to share some kernel component in common.

3. Non-Linux GNU operating system distribution exist also. See the GNU variants Wikipedia article for more. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

If you can't tell the difference between "I don't care what other people call it" and actually agreeing that Linux is no longer called Linux, I can't help you.

Linus Torvalds created something great. He called it "Linux". He wrote it, so he gets to name it. Stallman is free to name what he creates (GNU Hurd). If you don't like the fact that when someone creates something they get to name it, post an RfC. See how many people agree with you.

So if you will excuse me, I am off to convince the world to call it TRIX/Mach/GNU Hurd. This will be my last response to you. Be careful about WP:BLUDGEONING. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of which, it's actually called Freax because Linus called it Freax. The Finns bullied him into calling it Linux, just as Stallman tried to! /hj Aaron Liu (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Bludgeoning

Per WP:BLUDGEONING:

Bludgeon: To beat powerfully with an object of great mass.

"In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions. This can happen on a talk page, deletion discussion, or ... realistically, in any discussion on Wikipedia. This behavior and conduct is undesirable, considered a form of disruptive editing, and is usually seen and reported as such when observed by other editors who are involved in the same discussion."

One person posting 26 comments -- many of which repeat the same arguments -- in a discussion with 68 total comments is excessive and disruptive. User:Victor Matheus Amaral, please stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It was not made in bad faith. I invited many people to join the discussion to maximize its reach and subject it to public scrutiny. Are you afraid of that? — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

If you find it disruptive, just leave the discussion, you are not forced to be here. — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, enough is enough. I have been watching this argument, and it seems they just want their own point to stand. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

A significant part of the Linux community agrees with that. I want my point to stand, would I argue against myself? — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Just stop. At this point you are now restating your argument over and over. This is starting to get to the point where it is annoying. You are still WP:BLUDGEONING. Please stop. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

No, I am not doing that. I summarized my arguments in a subsection of this topic, and nobody countered them. If you find it annoying, just leave, no one is forced to be here. We will not stop the discussion because you feel annoyed. What is your authority? — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This has now entered disruptive territories. I will not be replying to anymore of your replies, as it is just going to make me more annoyed. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

As seen from other messages, you ran out of counterarguments and are desperately trying to bring down the discussion using fallacies. — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Knock it off. Continuing down this path is going to start to enter disruptive territories. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Please stop getting off-topic and go counterargue in the subsession I created (if you can) — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm to the point we should move to AN/I. @Guy Macon should I go in and file a report on this, since I am just going to get more annoyed the further this chat goes on. They are pushing their POV constantly. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

"I'm getting annoyed and will report this" yes, I'm the one pushing my POV. — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You're just a random person who contributed nothing to the discussion and came solely to push personal interests. And stop commenting in this section. If your message was for Guy Macon, post it on his talk page. I will not respond to any more attempts to derail the discussion. — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, since some people say because I said they it implies more then one person somehow, I am talking about Victor Matheus Amaral. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 21:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

What on earth happened here? For anyone who comes later I want to make clear that I'm not with Victor Matheus Amaral. I did comment on the "GNU/Linux" naming controversy that was brought up as a topic on his thread, because I figured I had useful arguments to provide on the subject, but while I may agree with the GNU/Linux idea, when SuperJames888 said "I have been watching this argument, and it seems they just want their own point to stand." I just want to point out so that everyone is clear on it, that I'm not associated with User:Victor Matheus Amaral and don't know him. So I don't want any trouble with reports being filed with such Bludgeoning affairs as I wasn't affiliated with such things, and it's just a coincidence I agreed with the name thing. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no issues with you (Softwareperson1000). We may be on opposite sides of the naming controversy, but your arguments have been reasonable and not at all disruptive. Very productive, in fact. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Do not be afraid of them — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

What in the world does that imply? SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You said "they" — Victor Matheus Amaral 21:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Please tell me that you are joking. The singular "They" is the accepted pronoun for when you don't know what a person's pronouns are. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I see that was the source of my confusion then. I interpreted they as many people, and given there weren't all that many people arguing on the side in favor of "GNU/Linux", that's what prompted my reply a few replies above. All is OK then, I'll check out from this conversation. Thanks Softwareperson1000 (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Also to let you know, Victor only started mass editing yesterday, on basically only linux articles. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 21:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

what's the matter? — Victor Matheus Amaral 21:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Getting around 170 edits in roughly 2 days is abnormal. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 21:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I know — Victor Matheus Amaral 21:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that. He's only edited about this topic, so simply an editor with a lot of passion (whom I agree is bludgeoning). Aaron Liu (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

To summarize this: Wikipedia editors broadly dislike a lot of comments from the same person, especially if they're saying the same thing, as they might drown out others' arguments and make a discussion much harder to read—especially for anyone trying to join the discussion. Please be assured that other editors will read your arguments (the outcome of decisions is based on arguments, not the number of comments) and slow down. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Call for close and collapse

This issue appears to have been resolved at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Victor Matheus Amaral continuous bludgeoning and POV pushing and Victor Matheus Amaral appears to have moved on to another contentious topic -- whether Wikipedia should display images of Mohamed. I suggest that someone who has not been involved in this discussion close and collapse the entire thing including subsections. I think we are done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

RfC on adding "GNU/Linux" to the lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the inclusion of the term GNU/Linux and the representation of the GNU Project in this article. Feedback is requested on the following proposal: Include the phrase "sometimes called GNU/Linux" immediately after the term "Linux" in the lead paragraph. — Victor Matheus Amaral 21:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Support as proposer: I find it appropriate to include "sometimes called GNU/Linux" after the term "Linux" in the lead. Excluding it favors one naming convention over another without encyclopedic justification, which violates our core policy of WP:NPOV. My arguments:

• It is often used by reliable secondary sources: , , , , , ,
• It is used by Debian, a major Linux distribution:
• It is used by many other distributions.
• If a layperson stumbles upon the term "GNU/Linux" across the internet, thinks of it as a distribution or something else rather than a synonym for "Linux," and searches for it on Wikipedia, they will probably get on the Linux article. However, they might get confused because the term is not present at first glance in the article, think they are on the wrong page, and simply leave.
• It is the preferred term by the GNU Project, the FSF, and adherents of the free software movement.
• It is not against the will of the creator: "It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much continue to call it 'Linux' ... The GNU people tried calling it GNU/Linux, and that's ok. It's certainly no worse a name than 'Linux Pro' or 'Red Hat Linux' or 'Slackware Linux' ... Lignux is just a punny name — I think Linux/GNU or GNU/Linux is a bit more 'professional' myself, but I'm not going to get gray hairs about this."
• It is a long-standing discussion in the Linux article that could end with a simple mention in the lead.

My arguments are backed by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."; "Significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages."

They are also backed by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."; "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts; (I provided IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library and PubMed Central; I also provided from PCMag and Linux.com (they are often used in Linux articles))

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; (GNU Project, the FSF, Debian, many other distributions, and the free software community, which are a significant part of the Linux community.)

Excluding "GNU/Linux" from the lead while it is used by reliable secondary sources is editorially biased, because it favors one naming convention over another without encyclopedic justification beyond aesthetics.

Some main Wikipedia articles that have less used and historical names in the lead:

• Saint Petersburg have "Petrograd" and "Leningrad".
• Iran have Persia.
• macOS have OS X and Mac OS X.
• VLC have "sometimes abbreviated as VMP".
• iOS have iPhone OS.

There are many other examples...

Some disclaimer against a common argument people try to use to get off topic: The term "GNU/Linux" does not imply that the majority of a Linux distribution's software should come from the GNU Project, it just asserts the historical fact that GNU was the foundation upon which Linux built itself. But this discussion is not about how important GNU is; it is about how often the term "GNU/Linux" is used to warrant inclusion in the first paragraph, and how it increases the encyclopedic value of the article. And still, the majority of distributions still use core softwares that are part of GNU project like grub, coreutils, glibc and gcc — Victor Matheus Amaral 21:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• Not as an alternate name for "Linux": Alpine Linux's "core OS" components (C library, shell, utilities), for example, don't all come from GNU, but its name includes "Linux", so it's "Linux" without being "GNU/Linux". It might be better discuss the "GNU/Linux" term in the text rather than in a parenthetical not claiming that Linux is "sometimes called GNU/Linux" without explaining when - and why - it's appropriate to use the term. It's already mentioned in the second paragraph; perhaps expand that, or break it out into a separate paragraph. Guy Harris (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Not in the first sentence, but GNU/Linux is already in the lead section. Also, according to Debian themselves, "Debian is a Linux-based operating system." I see nearly all major Linux distributions describing their software in relationship to Linux. There is consensus against the proposed change in the discussion above. Also, I agree that this would not meet Wikipedia standards for editing towards a neutral point of view. From WP:NPOV:
  1. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement,"
  2. "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view."
  3. "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."
  4. "In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. Although neutral terms are generally preferable, name choice must be balanced against clarity. Thus, if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question despite appearing to pass judgment." Also, also, the formatting of this RFC is also somewhat bogus, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep existing mention in second graf, do not move to lede. Second paragraph gives it correct amount weight per sourcing. Agreed with Rjjiii above. I'm also unimpressed that multiple editors brought up WP:BLUDGEONing concerns (concerns which I share), and your response was to IMMEDIATELY open an RFC. Please give this topic time for other people to contribute. Eyesinthefire (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Not in the first sentence: In short because of LeadRel. Also, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers#cite_ref-3 even though I agree with all of you. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Just so everyone here knows, I have started AN/I discussion about this user due to the WP:BLUDGEONing concerns, and the consistent POV pushing. It is also about the comments sent when someone opposes them, and when they don't reply. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 22:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's fine in the second paragraph, would be OK lower. That gives it the correct amount weight per the sources. Also see How much GNU is there in GNU/Linux? and GNU/Linux naming controversy. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - The term is already in the lede of the article, in boldface, with appropriate contextualization and in keeping with it WP:NPOV (and WP:UNDUE more specifically). Adding this to the lede sentence would disproportionately promote a POV term that is not used by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources to make it seem more prominent than it actually is. The prior discussions before this RfC have already addressed the rationales that the proposer has repeated here, and stand as valid reasons why such a change would not be an improvement or in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Aoidh (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Guy Macon VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 00:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aoidh and Guy Macon. If GNU had been missing from the lede, I can see making sure it's included, but it already is included, and this gives it undue weight for how it is characterized in reliable sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Guy Macon and Aoidh as well. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 01:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.