Talk:Linux

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Linux article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Useful info from archives   Can we rename this page to GNU/Linux? No, the vast majority of people and companies call it Linux, and we already mention the alternate name in the lead and its own subsection. (See Talk:Linux/Name and Talk:Linux/Archive 41 § Page move: GNU/Linux). Do we need the GNU history? Yes, GNU played an important role in the development of Linux as we know it today. (See Talk:Linux/Archive 5 § GNU-NPOV-History and Talk:Linux/Archive 16 § History). For previously discussed criticism of Linux, see Archive 2, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 10, Archive 17, and Archive 20.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Linux was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 21, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 14, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 23, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed March 14, 2007 Peer review Reviewed July 12, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 29, 2008 Peer review Reviewed December 7, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted October 21, 2021 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Delisted good article

Linux desktop environments was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 November 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Linux. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linux Top‑importance Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Brands Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Open (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. Computing: Software / Free and open-source software High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Top-importance).

To-do list for Linux: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2026-01-03 update references for adoption to match recent events talk more about international usage finish translating missing content from French page: servers, embedded devices, and security talk about X and possibly TeX in the history section add better references reference for all the different pronunciations expand comparisons section, mention device drivers here move the remaining stuff near the end about uptake/adoption/migration/usage to Linux adoption and summarize in History improve the criticism section. Criticism of Linux has mysteriously disappeared over time. (Compare the current article to the "article milestones" listed on this page. Also see the revision history of Criticism of Linux.) Verify the "Copyright and naming" section states "A 2001 study of Red Hat Linux 7.1" and I am pretty sure were only at Red Hat 5 to date. Confirmed. BTW, we are at Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 5.4, today. RHEL and Red Hat Linux are different. --W4otn (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Linux was copied or moved into Linux range of use with this edit on December 14, 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article was nominated for merging with Linux distribution on 24 July 2011. The result of the discussion was not to merge, but rather to revert the cloning edit.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54

/Name and Talk:Linux/Archive 41 § Page move: GNU/Linux: discussions of "Linux" versus "GNU/Linux" /Referring to this article: Terminology used in other articles to refer to this subject

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Unix Shell and Unix Inspiration

I've personally removed the Unix shell information as it's unfounded, and want to have a bigger public weigh in on the suggestion that Linux uses the "Unix" shell.

Linux as both a kernel and an operating system doesn't require a shell, nor is there one specific shell in use. There's no founding for the suggestion that there's a shell at all.

While historically many Linux distributions opted to use sh / bash to run sysv as their init system, it wasn't strictly necessary. /bin/init / /sbin/init can be any binary that acts as an init system reaping processes, children, and zombies.

However, my biggest issue is to suggest the idea that the default is a Unix shell when there is no default. Powershell is available on Linux, so we could easily put Windows Powershell as the shell. So I've removed it as being irrelevant and unfounded.

Also I've added that Linux is inspired by Unix, and this is cited in multiple sources on the history of Linux page. ^[1], And redhead has a great article stating similar facts about Unix being one of the inspirations of Linux ^[2]

Even in the Linux article there's this line "It was with this course that Torvalds first became exposed to Unix. In 1991, he became curious about operating systems.[69]".

Or in simpler terms, is it wrong to say Linux was influenced by Unix? I simply want some public weigh in on this edit in the event it does prove to be controversial.

If someone has a source that says that Linux relies on a Unix like shell and can't work with any other type of shell, I'd be more than happy to backtrack on that edit.

TotallyNotSkyNet (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably weigh in on this discussion later, but for now I just wanted to thank you for—as a new user—not getting into an edit war and instead following WP:BRD. I think your perspective might have some weight, and I would've hated to see it lost due to WP:3RR. Cheers, /home/gracen/ (they/them) 15:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would not to be wrong to say that Linux was influenced by Unix.

It wouldn't even be wrong to say that Linux is Unix-compatible (to the extent that any Unix or Unix-like system is completely compatible with any other such system; one requirement of something being a Un*x is that is has to do at least one thing differently from all other Un*xes :-)).

It would be wrong to say that Linux - or Solaris or AIX or FreeBSD or HP-UX or macOS or... - relies on a Unix like shell and can't work with any other type of shell. It could, for example, have a full-screen curses-based user interface (such as AIX's SMIT) for administrative purposes, have some program replace init scripts - or, with a "process 1" program such as launchd or systemd, not have init scripts per se - and could provide curses-based or Web-based application interfaces for users. It'd probably require some work to make sure nothing depended on running shell scripts, but it could probably be done.

It would also be wrong to say that non-Unix shells can't run on Unix-like systems; there's an implementation of the Digital Command Language for Linux and Windows (https://sector7.com/technical/vx-dcl-vms-dcl) and another one that is claimed to run on some unspecified "Unix"es (https://www.oneadvanced.com/siteassets/resources/application-modernization-collateral/advanced_fact_sheet_open_dcl.pdf), and as nted, PowerShell also runs on some Un*xes.

In practice, though, the best-known non-embedded Linux distributions default to a Unix-style shell, usually Bash, just as most other non-embedded Un*xes do. Guy Harris (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux page
2. "Unix vs Linux: The history of how Unix started and influenced Linux".

Rust is officially part of linux mainline

https://open.substack.com/pub/weeklyrust/p/rust-is-officially-part-of-linux?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&shareImageVariant=overlay&r=3ea750

I think we can no add rust to the list ~2025-41654-52 (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or, for a more official statement, Miguel Ojeda (13 December 2025). "[PATCH] rust: conclude the Rust experiment". linux-kernel (Mailing list)., as well as "The (successful) end of the kernel Rust experiment". lwn.net. 10 December 2025.. Guy Harris (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex rosenberg35, but it isn't play a minor role anymore ~2026-27193-3 (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]