Active discussions

Wildly outdated referenceEdit

I noticed the following sentence

GNU programs have also been shown to be more reliable.[34]

The problem is that the solitary reference to bolster this claim is from 1995! Surely there must be a more recent reference? Or are we to assume that nobody has bothered to try demonstrating the reliability of GNU programs in the past twenty years? (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I initially was triggered by this as well, but then I noticed that the sentence actually talks about Unix counterparts. In which case 1995 article is okay. Louigi Verona. (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an operating systemEdit

GNU's most important task is to provide open source versions of the UNIX command line tools. There is some other software under the GNU umbrella as well, such as GNOME. But it's still an exaggeration to call GNU an operating system. It's more like a collection of some essential components for an operating system. (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia we add content based on verfiable reliable non-primary sources. What should be in the article, if it can be backed up by such sources, is all of the points-of-views of what GNU is, including the one you express here. — Lentower (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
GNU certainly is not a fully functional operating system on its own, so it might be a bit misleading to call it such. (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd call it the operating system that never was, making a point to highlight that Linux, which, unlike GNU, is a real, fully functional operating system, has won. (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
How salty. "GNU advocate" here. Ever heard of the Debian GNU/Hurd? That's a fully functioning albeit experimental operating system. If by "won", you mean "every layperson calls Linux a 'fully functional operating system'" even though a minimal fully functioning "Linux" instance (one that can compile and build itself from source) contains more code written by the GNU Project than by Linus (and the kernel team)" (and don't give me crap about how glibc and the coreutils can be replaced, cause the gcc sure can't, and anyway "Linux" itself can be readily replaced by kfreebsd) then you're right. If by "won" you mean "the most successful popularizers of 'Linux' don't give a fuck about freedom and consider 'open source' a profitable buzzword", then you're right again. And if by "won" you mean "people think a blobby monolithic kernel is the height of efficiency and modularity" you're right a third time. So hooray for the successful propagation of an invidious and ultimately harmful lie!
That being said, if your intent was to assert that "Linux has defeated GNU and free software", you are mistaken. The greatest bastion of support for the GNU Project and its ideals is (by far) the "Linux" community itself.
Thanks for giving me an excuse to rant, annonie.--Monochrome_Monitor 16:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Friendly reminder here: WP:NOTFORUM. - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
With Richard Stallman out of the way, GNU is finally dead. I wonder how long it'll take Wikipedia to acknowledge it. (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure how you figure that, got any refs for it? There are still many people doing dev work on GNU projects. It is not like all work ended. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the pronunciation verificationEdit

An IP editor has been making a change to the article that is not only unnecessary, but hurts the ability to directly verify the information given. Their latest edit summary was "clearly, you haven't read the sources. they do not just verify the pronunciation. grow up and stop reverting for no reason" Personal attacks aside, it doesn't matter that they don't just verify the pronunciation, that's the part that matters because that's the part that needed a citation. We don't need five references at the end of the sentence verifying a simple statement as that is overkill, especially for the lede sentence when the lede isn't a particularly exceptional claim. Readers wishing to verify the pronunciation should be able to do so without having to dig through irrelevant references hoping to find something that verifies the information; the references should be near the material they support. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that references be placed at the end of the sentence. - Aoidh (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on GNU. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Fix Misleading SectionsEdit

The entire section on how GNU started because of the PDP11 ending support for an OS is entirely misleading. Unix system V had been in existence for many years in academia and provided the cornerstone for GNU. His original announcement of GNU to the usenet states a new version of Unix. The article should not ignore that RMS was writing replacements for existing Unix System V utilities - mainly the GCC cC complier - and not writing the OS first. GNU Hurd is not yet ready for production use and RMS started GNU in 1983 - 25 years ago! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:3172:33F3:7EB9:74B1 (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, history has proven that the the GNU OS was a proposal to write an operating system that was never completed, as the kernel was never finished and another one (Linux) used instead. - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

gzip, 7zip, compress registered trade names or trade marksEdit

GNU compress look so good on a GUI but for legal reasons had to be renamed. Another promising packer software name would be gnu Densify.

Let‘s start the Talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E0:8F0B:8E39:6514:F376:3E3F:51B7 (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Return to "GNU" page.