Talk:Criticism of Linux - Knowledge (XXG)

4535:

like: a) Compiling/linking something on a new distro against a fairly recent version of glibc, and then trying to run that binary on a different distro, with a slightly older version of glibc. Classic errors are things like: undefined reference to `regexec@@GLIBC_2.3.4' undefined reference to `__ctype_b' b) Linking against the C++ runtime library (libstdc++) but then a different distro having a different version of the libstdc++. libstdc++.so.6: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory We avoid these problems by a) explicitly linking against a very old glibc, and b) avoiding use of the C++ runtime. However, it requires careful attention.

4181:{{cite web|url=http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Linux-Standard-Base-40-certifications-announced/|title=LSB 4.0 certifications aim to heal Linux fragmentation |first=Eric|last=Brown |date=2010-12-08 |accessdate=2011-11-16 |language=englisch |publisher=linuxfordevices.com |quote=''The LSB spec outlines interoperability between applications and the Linux operating system, "allowing application developers to target multiple versions of Linux with just one software package," says the LF. Launched in the late '90s, the LSB working group released its first major LSB 1.1 specification in 2001. ''}}</ref: --> 987:. The Supercomputer market is fairly well awash with Linux solutions though you really are buying the big-iron. I imaging that Microsoft will be working on some marketing nonsense now that quite a few years later they come up with their solution so maybe we'll get some "criticisms". Desktop lightweight users have no real criticisms with Linux (presuming it is pre-installed by someone !). Desktop home users probably have an issue with games and general vendor support. Desktop enterprise again vendor support for esoteric or very specific industry apps. For servers the usual Microsoft marketing. 3372:

applications", "Linux, which runs on the same hardware as Windows, has always required much more technical expertise and a yen for tinkering than average users possess", "Linux is still too rough around the edges for the vast majority of computer users." "Desktop Linux will simply never be popular enough for most people to care about. One big reason is the difficulty of upgrading and installing software". These sound like criticisms to me. Certainly these are relatively general criticisms, but if you have sources for more specific criticisms, then by-all-means add them. -

2639:. This is just a small sample, there are hundreds more refs on this subject, but I haven't put all that in the article, because it is supposed to be a criticism of Linux. The main reason that the article lacks more focused criticism is lack of sources. The main reason that most of the older criticisms are refuted is because they were once valid, but due to the speed of open source development and its responsive nature, they have mostly been fixed today. Largely the article is historical at this point, at least until some more criticisms can be sourced. - 4264:*sigh*, another quote: "LSB aims to reduce Linux fragmentation: The LSB is intended to solve the challenges confronting ISVs and individual developers trying to stay compatible with the proliferation of endlessly changing Linux distributions, says the LF. By reducing the differences among individual Linux distributions, the LSB "significantly reduces the costs involved with porting applications to different distributions, as well as lowers the cost and effort involved in after-market support," says the organization." 1258:

there were various packages/companies which do ERP on linux, with no mention of performance issues). And then, again, on the certification issue I can't find any negative information since 2004. These are 4 year old issues, and should not be placed on any article as they are simply no longer notable in any way shape or form. And my comment regarding an extension of the Linux page, I meant that this page would end up filled with long lists of modern counter claims to all of the earlier criticisms.

1396:* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Knowledge (XXG) (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. 2669:' and 'Windows supports more hardware'. The latter is counting drivers that don't come with the OS, the former isn't. I suspect you actually agree with each other. Secondly, @41.177...: if a reliable source has published a refutation to a criticism, it *should* be made here. This is the case with all criticism articles (remember, even a "criticism of X" article is supposed to be NPOV regarding X, whatever the title claims). For example, in 2459:, layering an automatic dependency solver on top of the package manager (apt-get on top of dpkg, urpmi/yup/zypper on top of rpm, etc.). These solve the "many deps", "long chains of deps", and "circular deps" problems, and shift the "conflicting deps" problem from the user to the distro itself (and a repository can be proven to be complete and conflict-free (assuming accurate package metadata), so presumably all modern distro repos are). -- 2778:

that way? Because the article conviently omits the most common criticisms, such as gaming or running major commercial programs like Photoshop. Yes, you can run apps with WINE (which isn't perfect) and there's a growing library of games, but both these points are oft-sited reasons as to why Linux is not widely adopted. The article incorrectly implies that hardware support and user-friendly desktops make all criticisms of Linux invalid.

2011:, which is defined as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The list of references for this article contains much "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore the subject meets the Knowledge (XXG) definition of notability. - 3495:

dissatisfied with both types of support. There simply isn't enough to go on either way. To make matters more complicated, Linux support is further fragmented by the large number of distros. On that topic, there was mention (it even popped up on distrowatch) that Mandriva's official support was lousy. But I don't think it's appropriate for this article, since that is a distro-specific issue and doesn't apply to Linux generally.

4631: 5065: 2275:

to Linux, because they consider the net-benefit to small (or even negative). Windows, due to its market share, does not have this problem. I have rephrased this section to indicate that hardware developers do not support Linux sufficiently, rather than the other way around. (Note that, while the end effect for a low-end user is the same, this is highly pertinent when doing a factually correct critique or comparison.)

243: 4716: 222: 4134:, which make the problem with the sheer distributions amount more clear for the reader, therefore I think this ref (and some concepts) should be included. Also restructuring the chapter (and title) from "distributions" to a more general "Fragmentation / paradox of choice" could be useful. While distributions are the best known domain in the linux eco-system suffering on fragmentation, it's not the only one. 191: 556: 3299:

criticisms may not still be valid, but that the criticisms were made at some point in the past. The article needs to have both current and historical criticisms for perspective, it can't just be current criticism as the article will always be behind the present timeframe. If you want to add additional criticisms that would be great, but beware that much of what has been argued above is

890:" which uses Gartner and at best they say that "On the desktop, Linux is having a tougher time. Gartner claims the operating system is reaching the point where the costs of migration may exceed the cost benefits in a phase characterised by over-enthusiasm and unrealistic projections which lead to more failures than successes.". I'm going to change that sentence to match the cite. 428: 1906:

fixes and hence the systems have improved at a pace and in a user-driven manner that would be impossible in a commercial environment. This naturally makes for a shorter article. I would be in favour of leaving it as a separate article. I do read a lot of published writing in this area and am always on the lookout for articles that could be refs for expanding this article. -

1764:. The reason for adding these was that the article consisted of nothing but dense text and I believe that it benefited from a couple of pictures to make it more appealing and interesting to readers. Since it was not possible to find an image to illustrate a actual point of criticism of Linux, I opted for two general Linux desktop images instead. Obviously not all editors 468: 4725: 3232:

problems have been documented and responses to problems are prompt" statement ("a quick glance on any bugtracker" is of course no proof either). "Most problems" already indicates that you will be able to find at least some problems that weren't documented/fixed. Also, I could even go as far as say that having a bugtracker item counts as "documented". --

5015: 893:"which is claimed particularly problematic for laptop users as they tend to use many proprietary devices." is also uncited. This is a general claim related to hardware support and it is not so much a criticism of Linux but of the hardware manufacturers not supporting Linux i.e. "The issue isn't Linux technology or UI. It's vendor support." quoting 350: 3149:(unindent) This discussion seems to have come to an end without establishing that this article has a "neutrality" problem. We we seem to have a consensus that it is incomplete and needs more cited criticisms added. I will try to find some and unless there are objections I think the "neutrality" tag can be removed, based on this discussion. - 340: 319: 4530:

interface changes, but generally is not too much work. That said, the kernel API churn sometimes seems unfortunate: in some cases, working interfaces are broken or replaced with broken ones for no seemingly good reason. In some other cases, APIs that were previously available to us are rendered unusable. 2) The (recently, more quickly)

528: 4182:) which specifically mention the parodox of choice (resulting from fragmentation) wrt to the linux ecosystem, 2 given above (if both are fitting the WP def of reliablity is another question, first one is at least non-anonymous, second one is a reviewed tech-page). also, while the paradox of choice is a problem for the end-users (-: --> 2752:. I mean, if we're going to criticize it, let's criticize it. Not like Linux never crashes; indeed those of us skilled in the art know exactly where the weaknesses are. No need to conceal them from the reader here. The article should reflect the idea "Linux ain't perfect". Right now, the images don't give that impression. 3688:

The Microsoft section says, "Microsoft has criticised Linux on servers extensively through its Get the Facts campaign." How long did the campaign last for and how much money did MS invest in it? Unless we can substantiate these factors, using "extensively" strikes me as an example of false dichotomy;

2880:

No no, my point was that instead of saying: "Linux won't run X", it's actually "X doesn't support Linux"! This is criticism of "X", not Linux! Therefore you shouldn't make such a list in this article. (Or even at all; Knowledge (XXG) is not a catalogue.) You could say that many games (and other apps)

1905:

The article is quite short, but it is very well referenced and on-topic. Expanding it really requires finding suitable references outlining further criticisms and then adding them into the article. I think in a way the open-source nature of Linux has meant that most criticisms get quickly turned into

1543:

5. An exploration of who really controls and contributes to Linux would be in order. To what extent is is really a collective action, and to what extent is it dominated by IBM, Red Hat and a small cabal around Linus? How dependant is progress with Linux on professional commercial engineers, such as

1267:

criticisms. And I have yet to find many of those! So much so that having a full article regarding it is against policy, and the content should be merged into where those criticisms apply. I have done a short search on Google News, looking over 20 pages of news items and I could only find one negative

1257:

You have missed my point again. This article is titled 'Criticisms of Linux' and therefore should describe notable criticisms of linux. The ERP comment is not notable (I couldn't find anything criticising Linux for being incapable of ERP, and the only things I could see were articles from 2004 saying

1178:

Something is being done about this but I couldn't say which versions addressed them in which year. Perhaps you could provide a version history. By their nature, new versions fix or improve upon problems in the previous versions. By listing this progress you provide useful information which will be

1162:

You have a point about the datedness of the criticisms. But please don't try to suppress the article - that won't work as the AFD discussions show. Instead, you should try to improve the article by showing how the product development is addressing the criticisms. For example, a couple of standard

990:

Now for all the above multiply that by the number of distributions and you end up with an uneven struggle with people like Gartner trying to guess a future which ends up obsolete the day before they publish their reports through to Microsoft who cherry pick the oddest of configurations and once again

3800:

But overall, i think this reference (or page) should somehow mentioned because the linux community presents themself here in a specific geeky way, and this confessed POV is representative for the overall (majority) linux culture. the point which is the essence for criticism, is that the hack-ability

3371:

I really don't know how you can say that the section "offers NOTHING in the way of actual criticism". Some quotes from the article "Linux has been criticized for a number of reasons, from being inadequate for desktop use, support for exotic hardware, gaming and lack of native versions of widely used

3333:

The point of the matter is, this is an article about *criticism*. The section offers NOTHING in the way of actual criticism. It notes that support is different between Linux and other OSes, but that is NOT a criticism. The claims may or maybe not be true (and a single, online article doesn't make it

3185:

Remember, this article is about *criticism*, NOT about determining whether criticism is valid or refuting criticism. The simple fact is, for better or for worse, Linux CONTINUES to be criticized for the reasons mentioned in the article. Applying past tense implies it's not longer valid, or that such

2743:

So if I try to stand back and look at it objectively, here is what I come up with: Looking at the article from the perspective of the target audience, "the reader with little or no knowledge of the subject", I find the image use misleading. There are plenty of articles to demonstrate pretty GUI's,

2274:

While it is technically true that Linux has been critized for lacking hardware support, this statement is highly misleading. Looking at the operating systems themselves, Linux is actually ahead of most others, including Windows. The hitch is that hardware developers fail to provide necessary drivers

2093:

And yes, I have waited for 2 years for other editors to say anything. The previous AFD's indicate that the overall consensus was to merge, yet here it still is. Any attempt to merge would end up with a few vocal people stamping their feet and claiming 'censorship' (such as any time previous articles

1302:

page would contain large swathes of text regarding the fact that early versions of the OS had X, Y and Z wrong with them. Fine, if you wish to have a 'History of Linux' article then you can discuss earlier criticism, but if you wish to have an article which is abou criticism then you have to keep it

1293:

Huh? What a pointless thing to say, especially as you are backing it up only with an essay, not policy or guidelines. So you are saying we should log every criticism of Linux from day zero, along with the many hundreds times more counter comments? In that case, I don't think there is enough space on

909:

The first link is to an article which says that "desktop Linux distros, such as SUSE and Ubuntu, are ready for you today -- even in the workplace."...but then continues, "as one of our Web developers cautioned me, there's a very steep learning curve in going beyond basic Linux use.". So really can't

812:

I don't want any windows users telling me how Knowledge (XXG) is biased against their crappy bloated operating system. Windows deserves that criticism, it worked very hard to garner it! And in order to shut those people up we need a "criticism of Linux" page that we can show them and say "see! it's

703:

Usually Microsoft pays money to promote their image and to make claims about competition, why should Knowledge (XXG) present their ads and paid "research" as "Microsoft opinion" for free? I think Knowledge (XXG) should use reliable sources, Microsoft is not a reliable source about their competitors,

3955:

In the course of working with Linux, Gordon says that he discovered that "Linux sucks at a lot of important tasks." He noted that Apple has solved a number of the things that Linux does poorly (though he ceded that Mac OS X also does many things badly), and that Linux developers should be "stealing

3825:. (And is clearly wrong: for a start, there's no such thing as 'the Linux community'; only a huge conglomeration of communities, some of whom don't care about usability in the traditional sense, and some of whom do (witness the amount of money e.g. Novell has put into Gnome usability studies)). -- 3820:

IMO, the bit of that that would need serious backing up is that "this confessed POV is representative for the overall (majority) linux culture". Assuming that a single, random, non-notable guy's personal opinion, in the form of a 2006 internet essay, is representative of the entire Linux community

3596:

The article covers too much. Seperate criticism pages should be created. The criticisms listed as applying to operating systems with the Linux kernel don't apply to android or Palm Pre's OS, linux on embedded systems. At best the article is probably best split into three: Criticism of Linux kernel,

3298:

If the section needs additional information then by all means added cited text. The existing text is all historical, although some of it from as recently as May 2009, but it is all cited and correctly reflects the references cited. The reason that the text should indicate past tense is not that the

3250:

Well, let me clarify. The point wasn't that bugs aren't documented (I should have worded better, I apologize), but rather that the implication that once bugs are documented, they are readily addressed and fixed. The fact that such a bug (and yes, it's a bug... you wouldn't call it a "feature" if it

1607:

No one said "Linux has a perceived lack of viable versions of widely used applications" they said "Linux lacks viable versions of widely used applications". That is the claim. That is the criticism. The current weasel worded approach is disingenuous to the claim. Should read "notably because of the

1547:

6. How secure is Linux? I've been looking at CERT for years, and the number of reports on Linux and Windows has been about the same most of the time. What does that mean, given that Windows is more heavily attacked and monitored? I've talked to professional security researchers who believe Linux

1039:

That Microsoft should criticize Linux, is interesting in the light of some of the services that they market, that are running on Linux servers. Several years ago I talked with a Microsoft employee who did support work for Microsoft. He was based in Winnipeg, and stated to me that the service he was

630:

I noticed that there was a page "criticism of Windows XXX" for every release of windows. But none for Linux. So I created one in the interest of keeping Knowledge (XXG) fair. I am a Linux fan, and if we want to create a better operating system we need to have a better discussion as to what needs

4534:

in the X.Org DDX. As in #1, this isn't a large obstacle for us: in recent driver branches, we can fairly easily build in support for multiple X server ABIs. 3) Being very careful about library and symbol dependencies in any of the binaries we distribute. The classic newbie mistakes here are things

4529:

in the Linux kernel. This is not a large obstacle for us, though: the kernel interface layer of the NVIDIA kernel module is distributed as source code, and compiled at install time for the version and configuration of the kernel in use. This requires occasional maintenance to update for new kernel

3733:

said of Linux desktop systems in general at that time...". It seems a bit odd to include "at that time" in the sentence, especially since a date is given at the very beginning. I mean, duh, what else would he be talking about? Linux 15 years in the future? Besides, it gives the impression that the

3198:

Second, the implication is that other OSes don't have community-drive, free online support. Sites like www.annoyances.org, or the #windows channel on freenode, all provide volunteer support for Windows issues, and often replies are extremely speedy, not any less so than the article implies happens

2325:

All the different distributions of Linux make it difficult to create a single (non-trivial) program that runs on all. There are differerent window managers, different package managers, different shells... Sometimes they are partially compatible, which only makes it worse ("Why does my script crash

2189:

I decided to dump merge this article into the Linux article. After I had saved the changes, a bot automatically reversed these changes. How are we supposed to merge articles as suggested if our actions are reversed? This is ridiculous. Anyone know how to dump merge without the system reversing the

1859:

Actually anything running on Linux except the command line is really "polish" that adds more visual appeal than function. Regardless, your substitution of another desktop image is fine, as I said I just randomly found the original image on Commons and used it because it was a color contrast to the

1843:

Its not neutral because it is trying to polish Linux by showing the 3D graphic functionality and is not related to the general matter being discussed in the article. It looks like the image has been inserted just to get people plunge into Linux for the compiz effects (or at least create a positive

1587:

I agree that Linux is a sacred cow and I think it deserves a lot more criticism than it gets. I've tried many different Linux distributions and wasted many hours of time on them but there's always something that doesn't work. I suspect many other people have had the same experience but we're not

4935:

unless the author is considered a "recognized authority". There seems to be enough evidence that he is considered to be, which is why I reformatted and left it there after your revert. Personally I think this would be of more value if used as a ref to expand the article, than as an external link,

4472:

Linux is still too fragmented, and a developer targeting Linux will have to choose from a variety of APIs, a bazaar of somewhat matching but mostly just chaotic choices that will work on some systems but not on others. I think it would be in our greatest interest to streamline the platform top to

3231:

Just a quick note: That's not really a bug, it could easily be seen as a feature! There is no standard way to implement volume control, and a linear control (even though it makes not much sense) is as good as any. Also, you're giving one example, but that still does nothing to undermine the "most

3071:

To be honest, I find those two links very bad. Apart from the obvious biased name (and also content) of the website, it's full of half-truths and generalized statements. The two pages you're pointing to are just a general piece of text, without sources. I would personally not consider these to be

2777:

The problem is, a lot of folks are confusing "criticism of Linux" with "anti-Linux". It's not that I dislike the system (I run Ubuntu/Kubuntu, Mint and OpenSUSE), but it seems like this article was written by Linux affectionados to dispell criticism, not to objectively represent it. Why do I feel

2705:

Ahunt, the "sources" you provided are blogs... most of which are Linux-advocating in the first place (desktoplinux.com, for example), so you'll forgive me for not considering them exactly "neutral" sources. When I provided a link about Linux criticism it was shot down because it was a blog, but a

1525:

This should be taken as a challenge, given that wikipedia is rooted in the open source philosophy. There are plenty of real criticisms of Linux, but who would try to edit this article, just to have them reverted by outraged fans? I don't think most Linux fans have ever had a conversation with a

822:

That is a very poor argument. The issue with Windows is that the fact it is criticised is a notable subject on its own - there are many thousands of articles covering criticism of it - therefore it could be claimed that such an article is needed (however, I think it should be merged back with its

4808:

I don't believe there is a POV problem with the article, but that is not the issue with the graphic here. The graphic is simply not a criticism of Linux, nor does it illustrate one so it doesn't fit here; it is essentially off-topic. Likewise there is no mention of Kernel panic as a criticism of

2845:

The usual response to "Linux won't run X" complaints is to point out that "it will run Y, which is similar and free instead." I am not sure that gets us anywhere. Will there be a "List of Apps that Won't Run on Windows", like GFTP and Epiphany? Perhaps we could make some general statements about

2757:

My own opinion, as an engineer and consultant is, "All software sucks. Linux just sucks less than most". If an article sets out to point out, "Linux sucks" (as do all the "Criticism of..." articles, is what I'm sayin'), it's pretty easy to use images to demonstrate the idea to the reader "with

1230:

This article is already an extension of the main Linux article. Linux is a big topic and so subarticles are appropriate. The main article currently says nothing about ERP or security that I can see. Since these are significant criticisms it would be good to have them addressed somewhere. For

932:

is clearly not in Windows' favour as it throws a spanner in the Microsoft claims. It can't be used here to support claims of criticism of Linux ! And for the last few cites on reliability and TCO the links say "Third-party experts and customers are weighing the total cost of ownership of Windows

4360:

For users coming from a Windows, or Apple, background the possible Linux choices are overwhelming: Paradox: The problem is not that there isn’t a “right” version of Linux for each and every user it is that users are likely to be overwhelmed by the options and ultimately find their final choice

2454:

page are now going to be sufficiently old (checking: the first two are from 2001 and 2003) that, whilst still perfectly good sources for describing what it is, are very poor ones for a claim that modern Linux distros suffer from it. So some new sources are definitely going to be needed for the

1536:

3. Just like many big corporations, the open source community has settled for safe simple boring UNIX, instead of doing something innovative and imaginative. This is very old 1970s technology, brought somewhat up to date, but mostly by adding features already found in Windows NT (a proper DDI,

1521:

Are you serious about have an NPOV criticism page about Linux? There are a dozen articles about criticism of Microsoft and its individual products, and then you have this lame article that basically praises Linux with faint damnation. The reader of wikipedia is left to believe that Linux is a

4063:

3. Too many choices, too many distributions Enter the world of Linux. We've got Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE, Mint, Slackware, Arch, Elementary OS, PCLinuxOS… we've got a lot of choices for you. Does Apple offer that many choices? No. Instead, Apple makes one Snow Leopard, and that's it. Linux and

3494:

I'm in favor of removing the "customer support" section entirely; the simple fact is, it's far too much of a subjective point. Searching for references on Google, this much is apparent: Linux, Windows and Mac all have official and community support and all of them have users both satisfied and

1827:

I am not particularly attached to that image - I didn't make either of them - they are from Commons. I don't understand what you mean by a Compiz Fusion image not being neutral - perhaps you can explain to me why it is controversial? I chose it merely because it was different than just another

2822:

I think it's not a good idea to list games (or other apps) that don't run on Linux: you can list more than 95% of all (PC video) games! It can't be considered criticism of Linux if game-developers decide not to support it. Only if their reasons are like "it's too hard to support Linux", those

2025:

Yes, it does matter. One of the key parts of the notability criteria is independance from the subject. In the article, we have an entire section dedicated to discussion by Microsoft - who are not independant of the subject! Next, you have not shown that the notability of this issue is in fact

1148:

This simply seems to be a case of POV pushing by those who dislike Linux, and also conflicts with the original AFD. The re-created article simply restated the same old junk from Microsoft, so should have been deleted straight away, to allow it to get to the state it is in now (which is nearly

1138:

Also, the sources for these discussions are way out of date, as Linux changes month by month in terms of functionality and security. Articles which were published in 2004 and 2005 are so far gone that they should simply not be acceptable. We don't bring up criticisms under the Windows article

833:

article and the information placed where it is relevant. If it is all stuck in one spot under a poorly thought out 'criticism' banner then it will lower the quality of the article. For example, criticism about its usability should be included in a section on usability, covering the history of

2565:

I don't think there is any evidence that there is a POV problem here, but the article is definitely incomplete and can be expanded. As of August 2009 Linux supports more hardware than Windows does, so perhaps both articles need updating. I read your link cited above - it is just an anonymous

2518:

This page reads like Linux apologetics. Particularly aggrevating is the section about "customer support". I'm sorry, but my experience with Linux support is nothing like described, and a quick search on Google will demonstrate others have experienced the same. A casual browse though Ubuntu's

1134:

This article is as POV as can be, all the reasons that stood for the original delete still stand. Linux is a minority subject area, and as such is used by a minority of people. Including the views of an even smaller minority who criticise it is getting into fringe views - which should not be

4835:

I recently improved a cite in this article, and I noticed a problem with its structure. Unless anyone can argue "against" you need hardware in order to program software for it. And you need a kernel, OS, etc., before you can create a desktop. This is, indeed, how your criticisms creep.

1772:

over it, the correct procedure is to discuss the matter here on the talk page. The questions that should be addressed are whether any images at all improve the article and if so which ones. A decision can then be made to leave the images in, remove them or use other images, all based on a

2074:

but I don't think you are going to be happy with any explanations made. Let us just say that I believe this is a subject that meets Knowledge (XXG) critiria to stand on its on, although it needs additional text and refs added, and you disagree. Let's see what other editors have to say. -

903:"A steep learning curve of Linux beyond basic use, various incompatibilities with other operating systems, and difficulty involved with setting up hardware are also notable complaints. Further, Linux has been accused of being "not ideal" for intermediate power users. " has three cites, 3665:

Indeed, that would be an improvement. However, just splitting this into separate articles might not be the best way. If a resulting criticism page would be very short ("too" short), just add it as a section to the article it belongs to. But you were probably already going to do that.

2803:

Well if you have good refs on those that list games and other apps that don't run on Linux then by all means put them in! As far as hardware support goes, most of that is a matter of drivers that are in the kernel, so it is in "Linux" more than the distro libraries in most cases. -

916:

only mentions desktop in the claim ""Any statement from Microsoft about Linux is frankly self interested. If Linux gains share on the desktop, that clearly comes at the expense of Microsoft. Having said that, there clearly are criticisms of Linux," Haff says". Which really isn't a

2376:. Install packages can depend on other packages in such a way, that it is impossible to install them. Also, software that is not installed through a package manager can suddenly stop working if a library is updated to a newer versions that operates in a different, incompatible way. 2455:

latter claim. But they're going to be pretty hard to find, because effectively all modern, mainstream distros (with the exception of those that specifically target people who like managing their own dependencies, like Slackware) now use the "Smart Package Management" option from

1676:

Okay, I did manage to extract some useful criticisms from the article, although they are all past-tense. The extra text also made the article look rather "text-dense" and so I have added some images of Linux desktops from Commons to dress it up a bit and make it more appealing. -

2330:

Since I'm not a Linux wizard (although these two points come from my own experience), I don't feel comfortable adding them myself. Also (no offense): all the criticism currently in the article seems to be "properly addressed". Does this mean there is no criticism of Linux left?

2089:

You could point those things out, but then referencing other articles on here is also against policy... And the subject of Criticism of Windows XP itself is a notable subject, based on the fact that the criticism itself was and is discussed (not just the items that make up the

3612:

It is probably time that a split could be done along those lines. The only thing to be aware of is that on Knowledge (XXG) the use of the term "GNU/Linux" is considered POV. There is a wide and longstanding consensus that these operating systems are referred to as "Linux". -

1782:

I think having the two images enhances the appeal and and thereby the readability of the article by reducing the impression of dense text. I don't think the images add anything to the criticism of Linux, by way of illustration, but that is not a requirement for inclusion. -

4750:

POV. There may be criticisms of Linux outside WP and there may be rebuttals of those criticisms also outside WP. Despite the controversial nature of the topic itself, WP's job is to present both sides of this in a NPOV way. The article itself does not have to be POV.

4781:

I feel to do otherwise is a cover-up. No software is perfect, and Linux has been exposed as have all the others. An image such as the current File:Linux-x86-under-qemu.png of an innocuous boot is, in this context, crapulent beyond the belief of the most naive reader.

882:

Obviously this isn't a criticism article on just the the kernel but criticism on distributions in general. Does the article look like valid criticism of say Ubuntu ? NONE of the cites in the first section "Viability for use as a desktop system" actually match the text.

1213:

Also, where are you getting to criticism about ERP? I have been using Linux since 1995, so this is a surprise to me. When I do a very brief search for 'Linux ERP' in Google, I get results saying that it was doable in 2004 (SAP and Compiere being the 2 that feature most

5123:

in that real facts are objectively true independent of any observers. GTF references seem selected to uphold Microsoft's case, understandably, rather than presenting an unbiased, honest, candid exposé of all salient information on both sides of the story. That would

3202:

Thirdly, while some Linux fans would argue that "most problems have been documented and responses to problems are prompt", a quick glance on any bugtracker, from Fedora to Debian, shows otherwise. Take for example this bug, still open, that was filed in March 2008:

1294:

Knowledge (XXG) to do that. When Linux was originally created there were criticisms all over the place, but all were minor views and all were not notable. We can only really say that criticisms that are recent are actually notable about the subject. Otherwise, the

950:

Now can you see why I posted it as an AFD originally? It is going to be more than difficult to make this into a worthwhile article. However, I will work with what you have listed there and reword the article - as it is about 'Linux' as a whole and not just desktop

1894:

So, it's been 2 years since I posted my comments about the pointlessness of this article, and nothing has changed. Has anyone been able to think up reasons for this article to stay here, and not have the decent bits merged into the relevant articles that already

2593:

Furthermore, it seems that every point in this article is deliberately refuted in the article itself. Balance and opposing points is fine, but I walked away from reading this article feeling that it was definitely out to prove that all criticisms were invalid.

3550:

The article says at the top that it is addressing criticisms of Linux as a desktop system, but in various places the criticism is more general. The section about Microsoft is about server usage. I vote the "desktop system" disclaimer at the top be removed.

1374:

Provide me with a criticism that is widespread, along with evidence. I have shown that on the issues you mentioned, neither of them are widespread (not even simply minority views) but both are fringe views. They are not notable enough for inclusion under

4068:

comes into play. What this means is, whenever the user/consumer is given too many choices, it leads to poor decision-making or failure to make any decision at all. The cause of this paradox is attributed to rational ignorance and more commonly analysis

4418:

article but you should have it as something said by Rudolph Muller. His comments appear to be about desktop linux specifically. It doesn't apply to servers, mobile etc. I would still argue it doesn't have due weight even for that but at this stage

2949:

Who said anything about listing all software that won't run in Linux? The point is merely to mention that commercial software, particularly gaming, is one of the *major* criticisms that PC users have against Linux. Even Linux fans themselves admit

4839:

My big problem is two different kernel sections, that should be one, because we have this thingy called "sub-sections". Furthermore, there are other kernel criticisms "out there", not yet here, that belong to that section, as sub-sections to it.

4672:

I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but like other images he's created and then spammed on articles, this image is completely irrelevant to this article's subject and does not enhance a reader's understanding in any way whatsoever. -

2006:

It doesn't matter if it is a "fringe issue". Not being a paper encyclopedia, Knowledge (XXG) has thousands of articles on what some people would consider "fringe issues". The criteria for inclusion as a separate topic in Knowledge (XXG) is

1444:

So, I take it from the silence that you can't provide me with a widespread criticism, backed up with evidence? I would propose that this article be merged back into the relevant articles then, as per the multitude of comments on the AFD's

4267:

so, you really try to say, it is "original research" to conclude that the linux platform is fragmented using this refs? what you call disrespectful "synthesized", should be better called "multiple aspects of the same underlying concept"

3451:

On that section I agree - it isn't criticism. Some referenced text needs to be added there. Just need refs! Just a thought, but you really should open an account and help us make the article better - that is how Knowledge (XXG) works! -

1653:

Thanks for posting the link. It is a good article, but there really isn't a lot of actual criticism of Linux in there, perhaps a couple of points can be extracted and referenced. It is more a comparison and so may be more useful over at

4524:

Q: Which part of Linux / X.Org is most troublesome? The hardest thing about distributing a proprietary driver for Linux is to build a binary that will run across as many Linux distributions as possible. The challenges with this are: 1)

4565:

You shnotould not be inferring things from primary sources. Even specifically he say it isn't a large obstacle. Also "#1 and #2 are our own fault" and he also says "To be fair, my experiences with the problems in #3 are a bit stale".

3801:

of an OS is more important then the useability for the community. and these development goals are in conflict, heavily. And there is the culture of re-define usability as hack-ability (as the REAL usability), clearly in conflict with

2737:

I just went over the article when I saw the tag on it. What I think, is that the article cites its sources appropriately. I also think the AfD history points to an article that will always be criticized: Too critical, not critical

2408:

I see. I'll take some time to read through all the related articles and their sources, and search the web for more (if needed). I'll write up something that matches the sources, and post it here before I post it on the main article.

2321:

Linux stores libraries in one central location. Just as with Windows' DLL hell, some programs only run with specific versions, and it is a pain to get things working. (Of course, one could argue that this is a program criticism, not

1312:

I personally added a paragraph to the criticisms of Windows Vista detailing its slow performance for basic file functions. I will maintain this criticism regardless of whether Microsoft fully resolve the problem in future releases.

2268:"intermediate power users"). I have checked the three references: Two seem irrelevant, and only "Living ..." seems relevant to the sentences in question. I have removed the two irrelevant references and the misleading word "power". 2094:

similar to this have existed). And the fact that this article was actually previously deleted for the same reasons I list but was allowed to be recreated regardless seems to indicate a lack of consistency with policy enforcement.

2975:

Another point is that the computing world is not divided between Windows and Linux, as this article implies. There is also criticism of Linux coming from Apple users. This article should be wary of promoting false dichotomies.

3164:

Okay lacking objections I will remove the tag. I have also reinstated text that is relevant and properly sourced to reliable third party refs that an IP editor removed. If you have a problem with this then please discuss. -

1217:

And what do you mean by security options? On certification, last I checked Mandriva had achieved EAL5 certification (a process started in 2004). Same with Redhat Enterprise Linux. These are all 'old news' in the scheme of

910:

pin the article author down to saying that "very steep learning curve in going beyond basic Linux use" other than he reports one of his web developers as saying that. The article author main issue is with "vendor support".

2881:

don't support Linux because its market-share is considered too small (or whatever reason the developers of "X" use), but listing these programs is a bad idea. Also, there already is an article with software-alternatives:

1798:

The compiz fusion image is not neutral for this article, i don't mind if you put a default ubuntu desktop image there, but showing the cool graphics is compromising neutrality. Isn't everything supposed to be neutral?

1728:- you already have a screenshot of Mepis at the top. In a criticism article the images too should show the negative aspects of Linux or there should be no images at all. Images to polish the subject are inappropriate. 1532:

2. Linux is the center of a political mass movement whose followers have muddied the discourse on software with polemic and misinformation -- both exageration of OSS qualities and daemonization of commercial software.

1209:

be improved, as the inclusion of these pieces of information would be not notable enough. I don't wish to suppress anything, and think that anything of use should be included on this site, so long as it isn't a fringe

593: 488: 153: 1067:) Furthermore, I believe this is a notable topic, warranting inclusion in the encyclopaedia. This has been proven by the numerous reliable sources. If you believe the article should be deleted, a full discussion at 4227:

maybe you confuse "explicitly" with "literally"? also, when the linux desktop domain is only one example of an deeper/more general linux problem (the fragmentation), it can be mentioned here for sure (too).

4911:

Frankly Ahunt, I'm left wondering whether you took the time to watch any of the videos before removing the link. As they seem, at least to me, to unambiguously relate to—and expand upon—the subject of this

2257:

with one sentence statements and links/references for further reading), and in controversial topics and matters of taste, like e.g. Linux vs. Windows, there will be an opposing view to almost everything.

4208:

These articles don't call it the "Paradox of choice". It refers to something specific. We would need a source that uses this term explicitly. Also remember that anything to do with the desktop belongs in

3792:{{cite web |last=Humphries |first=Dominic |title= Linux is NOT Windows |date=2006-05-25 |url= http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm |publisher=inux.oneandoneis2.org |accessdate=2010-04-11}}</ref: --> 1410:

That is my point. That these early issues, simply due to their age, are not relavant to Linux as a subject unless you are focussing on the history of Linux, in which case, they should be included in the

1454:

Amazing. Almost 2 months and still no evidence. I would propose that this page be merged into the appropriate places in other Linux related articles, but undoubtedly it'd end up being re-created again.-

960:

As a Linux user since 1997 I'm happy that there is a criticism article as it highlights the gaps but it's going to be a hard task identifying Criticisms with Linux if the article has to be split into,

1938:

Hi, thanks for responding. Did you read my comments about this above? Can you address my concerns? Such as criticism of a minority subject being a fringe subject in itself, and therefore not notable?-

1221:

If all this information is included, the article would simply turn into an extension of the main Linux article, as the negatives would once again be outweighed heavily by more up to date positives.-

1331:- this is about 'Linux' as a whole. Your comment would apply if criticisms were being made about individual Linux releases such as Ubuntu 6.06 or Redhat 9 - of which there are plenty of criticisms. 2566:

complaint on a blog - no information or usable data is presented. To add more criticisms to this article we need reliable refs - if they can be found then text can be added as explained above. -

1040:

supporting was run on Linux servers. This service moved and screened email. Because this is hearsay, I thought it would be okay to include it on the talk page for the geeks that read talk pages.

929:

Which leaves the Microsoft section. Again are we talking Desktop or Server ?. It says Desktop in the article thus link to the Secunia study and Windows Server 2003 are not relevant. The link to

4130:

yupp, amount of distributions is mentioned in the article. The consequences (and mechanisms) from this are not so obvious, the first ref brings in one accepted concept from the decision-theory,

1828:

vanilla desktop image when I thought the article could use two images rather than one. Also please sign you posts by adding ~~~~ at the end, this inserts your user name and the date and time. -

713:

I agree with this analysis. Microsoft are not a reliable source when quoted directly. If a secondary/tertiary source can be found which analyses their results then this would be acceptable IMO.-

3307:. You need to find sources that say there are lots of long-term outstanding bugs that are not getting fixed. Add text if you have sources, but there is no reason to delete the whole section. - 1567:

sources to back them up they should not be reverted. This encyclopedia needs to include accurate criticism, even in the face of a large group of over-sensitive fans. It is an encyclopedia, not

4192:"If someone comes and says, 'I want to write an audio application. Which API should I use?' I don't have a good answer," Lennart Poettering (Creater of PulseAudio about Linux Sound API jungle) 1529:

1. There are so many versions and brands of Linux that complex applications are very difficult to develop that will run trouble-free anywhere and find the libraries and resources they expect.

4657:

and this graphic is not a criticism of Linux so is not relevant to the article. He reverted my removal of it, so I am bringing it here for discussion. Does anyone think this belongs here? -

887:"notably because of the perceived availability of only questionable alternatives to widely-used applications (especially office suites) and hardware support issues," is cited with link to " 743: 4156:

The first ref is a blog and so is unreliable. There doesn't seem to be any specific sources that mention the paradox of choice w.r.t Linux. As a side note, I also would point you towards

655:

We're not promoting the Microsoft POV, we're just stating that there are criticisms of Linux, and here is evidence of that. It is up to the reader to decide if they believe Microsoft.

4473:

bottom, and thus have a clear message what the Linux OS is. And of course, I believe my work in cleaning up the lower levels of our userspace stack is helping to work in that direction.

3269:

Furthermore, as I noted above, free, online, community-driven support is not unique to Linux, and is not a criticism of the system, therefore its place in this article is unnecessary.

1637:. I stated, that an essential part of criticism of Windows should be shortcomings compared to other operating systems, such as Linux and MacOS, and I think the reverse is true as well. 4843:

So, per BRD, I'm combining kernel criticisms, and re-arranging the sections as the hardware support morphs to the software interface that users see (mistaking gas pedal for engine).

4586:

The hardest thing about distributing a proprietary driver for Linux is to build a binary that will run across as many Linux distributions as possible. The challenges with this are: 1)

2748:

of Linux. To that end, whether the article uses one, three or thirty images (I really don't care), once numimages exceeds zero in the article, one of those images must come from the

3958:

sounds very explicite to me.... also, the term "linux" is used here (as in this wiki article) in the (common) sense meaning of "the linux ecosystem of distributions" (not the kernel)

498: 2029:

Next, we have the fact that the issues being discussed do not meet the 'notability is not temporary'. Many of the issues being discussed are out of date - therefore were temporary.-

1196:

You don't address any of my other points, such as the fact Microsoft is being used as a source, or the fact that these are fringe views, and are therefore in the realm of breaching

3763:

Hi, i want to discuss if and how this can be an useful part of the section "linux non-readiness for desktop usage" my original entry was not well polished (and therefore removed):

4687:

There does seem to be a pattern to the creation of these images and then trying to shoehorn them in all over the encyclopedia, even when there is no fit to the article subject. -

2394:

That sort of claim needs to be very carefully supported by cited references, so you will want to make sure that you cite refs that actually support the text you want in insert. -

2253:

Still, I see several weaknesses with this particular article, two explicitly discussed below. I note, in particular, that it is proper to present views opposing the criticisms (

2097:

So, again, I ask for explanations as to why this shouldn't be merged? So far you haven't actually provided any other than pointing at other articles, or misrepresenting policy.-

1142:

The inclusion of information by Microsoft is quite simply astounding. They are a direct competitor with the product!! The more people that use Linux, the less that use Windows.

508: 2758:

little or no knowledge of the subject". The idea is, "There be warts here". Present the evidence, let the reader figure it out (preferably by comparing the ten articles on

672:

We don't want to promote Microsofts POV, so we need to cite more non-MS sources. But who else has negative facts about Linux... everyone else seems to just not criticize it.

587: 147: 2250:

That an article named "Criticism of " deals mainly with negative issues is natural; further, that even criticisms that are not unopposed are included is right and proper.

2673:, the section with MS & Bott's refutations of Gutmann is longer than the section detailing his criticisms; this is right and proper, and the same applies here. -- 645:

Why is it that the only source for this article is Linux's biggest competitor, Microsoft? Isn't that the equivalent of writing an article based on industry slander?

3711:

I think "extensively" refers to the amount of criticism, not the amount of money and/or time spend criticising. That said, I agree: it sounds like a weasel word. --

1481:

All the points presented here have long been proved invalid(I am refering to the things MS says against linux). So whats the point of presenting them in a page ?

4876:

series of vids (documenting a series of Linux event lectures with Lunduke as a guest speaker) at the very least seem to have some *nix notability going for them:

3597:

Criticism of GNU + Linux based Desktops, Criticism of GNU + Linux Server. Or alternatively (or in conjunction with, criticism pages for particular distributions.

2744:

both Linux and non-Linux; these images here may or may not add to the reader's understanding of the subject. But as far as I can tell, this article alone is for

1235:

which we have even though the theory is now generally accepted. The existence of criticisms does not validate them - we record them because they seem notable.

4900: 3847:

It seems peculiar that Criticism of Linux page has a link to Criticism of Microsoft Windows, but not vice-versa, it appears biased. Anyone mind if I remove it?

3260:

I addressed one example, yes, but again... look at the fedora or ubuntu bug trackers and forums, and you will see many cases of problems that remain unresolved.

301: 79: 2519:

bugtracker, for example, will also show many questions are unanswered and unresolved, despite the implication that free support is somehow better than paid.

1065:

Articles that: Have previously been proposed for deletion, Have previously been undeleted, Have been discussed on AfD or MfD are not candidates for {{prod}}.'

4242:

It does does not appear to be explicitly stated in reliable sources, it is a synthesis of sources combined with original research to draw such conclusions.

2217:

process and dump one article into the other. If you had read the discussions at above you would see that no one was proposing dumping the whole thing into

834:

complaints, and showing how things have changed (or not, as the case may be) etc... This would lead to a well balanced article without a broken structure.-

5164: 1526:

professional programmer or heard the real criticism that is commonly expressed when game developers or other programmers talk about Linux. For example:

291: 44: 4006:

Well if you can find refs it could be added here or as a separate list article, but I think you would find these days that it is a pretty short list! -

4885: 3195:

What exactly do you mean by "the maturity of Linux"? Do you mean the age of Linux? The way the kernel has been coded? The statement is a peacock term.

2781:

Speaking of hardware support... that is a strawman; "Linux" in itself can't be said to have better support, because it differs from distro to distro.

923:

to "Green Hills calls Linux 'insecure' for defense" is effectively to a partisan view and it is related to embedded use NOT Desktop (for our article).

777:. As that is an editorial decision, continued discussion to reach a consensus as to whether or not this article should be merged is encouraged here. 3251:

appeared in Windows or Mac) has still not been resolved after nearly two years is an argument against the validity of support in the Linux community.

2499:

IOCTL could be criticized for allowing insecure programming to more easily compromise the entire system (granting kernel access to userland code). --

406: 4709:

Ahunt, I'm still having a problem with the lede graphic. As I've found out recently, the article is by definition POV, but the content is not, per

3925:

about problems/focuss in the development process, which in the end must result in some problems in the product. could explain some characteristics.

4592:. because as professionals they had to say that this is solvable... technicians are paid for findign solutions for even the ugliest circumstances. 736:

The articles I references are not just some random blogs. They are blogs from actual prominent developers of the ALSA subsystem and Linux itself.

85: 5179: 5159: 4189: 454: 396: 267: 2380:

That should take care of my item (1). No sources are needed; those should be added in the linked article (and there are already some there). --

3192:

Again, I remind you, this article is about CRITICISM. Not only does this section not provide critical information, it's chock-full of errors.

2300: 1609: 1059:

I contested the proposed deletion. First of all, the article doesn't meet the criteria for proposed deletion, as it survived AFD twice (from

850:

I have created a talk discussion on the receiving page ( in this case Linux ) about merging the content of this article into that article.

5101: 4043: 3413: 3341: 3276: 3216: 30: 4713:

sec. 2.3. However, to introduce the reader to an article that is POV, is it a sin to have a POV graphic? I'm seriously proposing either

5184: 5174: 5137: 3991: 3806: 3502: 2713: 2601: 866: 372: 3741: 3696: 3558: 2983: 2788: 2276: 1488: 250: 227: 99: 2550: 2526: 747: 104: 20: 3209:

I say the entire section be deleted as it offers nothing in the way of legitimate criticism and contains errors and distortions.

4980: 4880: 1815: 1744: 1152:

I propose that the pertinent information be merged into the relevant articles and then this be redirected to Linux, like before.-

1145:

If you get rid of the Microsoft information, that leaves a single paragraph of information that is covered on another article!!!

608: 168: 1860:

blue Mepis desktop that I inserted. I don't use Compiz Fusion and really don't have much time for desktop "eye candy" myself. -

1268:

thing in there - that there have been critical security flaws found in a recent kernel release. Which, would be included in the

826:

Saying 'see that article has one' doesn't mean that this one should have one - it just means that that one is in the wrong also.

74: 5169: 4183:

desktop linux), it's also problem for developers e.g. on the missing standardization on APIs for GUI or multimedia development(

3788:

The Linux community isn't trying to take over the desktop. They really don't care if it gets good enough to make it onto your

575: 135: 5132:. Since Get The Facts functioned more as Get Our Opinion, it seems like the kind of promotional propaganda behind more recent 2175:(unindent) Where these bits were all taken from originally - the various Linux articles - it doesn't all belong in one place.- 202: 4901:

https://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/200-libby-clark/771738-linux-video-of-the-week-linux-sucks-but-actually-its-awesome

4092:

Observed in many cases is the paradox that more choices may lead to a poorer decision or a failure to make a decision at all.

3867: 3780: 1705: 1643: 940:

I don't want to effect these changes as it will gut 95% of the article and it would be easier to simply AfD. What do we do ?

4890: 1060: 363: 324: 65: 4265: 4186:), or the missing inter-distribution compatibility ("which distributions should we support? Which API is covered on most?" 4554: 4490: 2632: 704:

also, the fact that Microsoft has opinions about their competitors is not an Encyclopedic fact (in my humble opinion) --

4414:

Since the use of this term is only by Rudolph Muller (I've seen no other sources use it), you could add a mention in the

2026:

verifiably notable - ie. this issue may be discussed by a few random articles, but that is not enough to show notability.

5052: 4759: 2624: 1169: 4116:

I'm not too sure what the suggestion is, we've already got something in the article about the number of distributions.

474: 3771:

from 2006, which is often cited and translated to many languages, presents a inadaptiv, defensive relationship of the

2584:

Ahunt, if you're gonna say "Linux supports more hardware than Windows", you'll need a reliable source to confirm that.

3984:

Windows software for which there are no alternatives available for Linux? This list is bound to help the community.

3734:

criticism is no longer valid, which isn't the avenue of Knowledge (XXG). I'm gonna do a little weasel-word weeding.

2264:

This statement is highly odd to me, because criticism is usually directed based on beginners and intermediate users (

1655: 1540:

4. Linux has become as bloated and poorly documented as the commecial operating systems it has attempted to replace.

4886:

http://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/linux/13958-why-linux-sucks-bryan-lunduke-at-linuxfest-northwest.html

1015:

Isn't this just marketing against a competitor, why Knowledge (XXG) should be a repository of ads and marketing? --

569: 129: 4520: 4501: 4424: 4415: 4210: 4157: 2670: 1608:

claimed lack of viable versions of widely used applications". Perceived is a statement of fact without a reference.

1334:

Linux is too wide a ranging subject to list every criticism of all the distro's and all the releases in one place.-

440: 5119:

Microsoft's high-profile objection to Linux is notable. Their "Get The Facts" campaign seems like an early use of

4653:

This graphic was made by User:ScotXW and added my him to the article. I removed it because the article subject is

1564: 109: 3334:

any truer than a single, online bug report makes the claims false) but that is NOT the purpose of this article.

1613: 1298:

article could be filled with complaints about usability in Windows 3.11, or stability in 3.1, 98, and ME. Or the

1080: 4846:

In the diffs, if you look closely, I will not remove or modify any of the article's actual current content. —

4282:

The term "Paradox of choice", which has specific meaning is not mentioned here which is your proposed addition.

1977:

Saying it meets notability criteria doesn't mean it does... Please elaborate as to why it isn't a fringe issue?-

1522:

perfect piece of software and anything done by Microsoft is vastly inferior, neither of which is actually true.

1110: 682:

We are by no means "promoting" Microsoft's point of view. All the article does is inform readers that Microsoft

5105: 4322: 4047: 3280: 3220: 2882: 2304: 1507: 1365: 1318: 1284: 1240: 1186: 565: 125: 4064:

Microsoft on the other hand keep giving their users the much-overrated 'freedom of choice'. This is where the

3417: 3345: 1633: 208: 190: 5141: 3995: 3506: 2717: 2605: 5043: 4972: 4521:

NVIDIA Developer Talks Openly About Linux Support - Published on October 20, 2009 Written by Michael Larabel

4175: 4075: 3810: 3745: 3700: 3562: 2987: 2792: 2280: 2067: 1232: 894: 862: 4542: 4478: 3987: 3737: 3692: 3554: 3498: 3409: 3337: 3272: 3212: 2979: 2784: 2709: 2636: 2597: 2554: 2546: 2530: 2522: 2296: 1803: 1732: 1484: 854: 739: 4851: 4787: 3716: 3671: 3237: 3077: 2890: 2828: 2767: 2759: 2504: 2414: 2385: 2336: 1553: 1492: 1303:

up to date else it will simply contain information that is not notable, useful, interesting or important.-

615: 263: 175: 3304: 2290:"Looking at the operating systems themselves, Linux is actually ahead of most others, including Windows." 2214: 1774: 1276: 692: 55: 5027:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

371:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

266:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4971:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1769: 1568: 70: 2540:

Oh, and here's a juicy article I forgot to include that addresses the very same issue by Linux users:

921: 805:

pages (plural) and think "Oh, there's just criticism of windows, and not other OS'es, this is bias".

789: 5005: 4921: 4895: 4637:-based family of operating systems has been very widely adopted: from embedded systems, such as e.g. 4187: 1880: 1876: 1849: 1845: 1811: 1807: 1740: 1736: 1628: 1593: 3629: 1963:, it just needs more text and refs added. I am looking out for more of the type I added recently. - 930: 847: 534: 467: 4925: 4611: 4571: 4509: 4431: 4385: 4329: 4287: 4255: 4218: 4165: 4121: 3944: 3916: 3852: 3730: 3637: 3602: 3026: 2851: 1503: 1361: 1314: 1280: 1236: 1182: 1149:

identical to the state it was in before being deleted the first time) should be seen as a mistake.

1113: 1095: 1030: 1016: 705: 601: 161: 3118:

Okay, but then to add anything at all on apps and games you'll need to find some other sources. -

994:

I don't think the article would even be non-partisan or neutral given such a huge scope. If I was

457:

for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

4964: 4913: 4809:

Linux. All systems can crash, so what? Again, like the previous graphic this isn't a fit here. -

4459: 3632:

and separate desktop linux from general linux criticism and see if people agree with the results

1777:

of editors working on this article. In the meantime leave the images in until a decision is made.

1117: 1099: 858: 24: 4247: 888: 581: 141: 5028: 3911:

It seems to be a about kernel politics rather than about the Operating system that uses Linux.

5133: 5120: 4981:

https://web.archive.org/web/20111007074633/http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity

4881:

https://www.techbeast.net/2013/04/30/why-linux-sucks-why-linux-doesnt-suck-2013-bryan-lunduke/

4847: 4783: 4642: 4597: 4550: 4486: 4405: 4367: 4273: 4233: 4199: 4139: 4105: 3963: 3930: 3901: 3712: 3667: 3233: 3073: 2886: 2824: 2763: 2500: 2410: 2381: 2332: 2195: 1549: 1295: 1076: 51: 4932: 4420: 3022: 2847: 1376: 1197: 5089: 4361:

unsatisfactory. It’s called the “Paradox of Choice”, a term coined by writer Barry Schwartz.

2541: 2271:

Linux had been broadly criticized in the past for its lack of support for hardware devices.

1412: 1174:

Linux lacks good security options and certification which are required for some applications

1045: 5035: 4937: 4377: 2749: 1091: 1068: 1026: 813:

not biased, now STFU already" and hopefully they'll just leave and buy a Mac or something.

5073: 4945: 4917: 4814: 4692: 4678: 4662: 4184: 4083: 4065: 4029: 4011: 3875: 3831: 3652: 3618: 3586: 3536: 3457: 3377: 3312: 3170: 3154: 3123: 3034: 2920: 2859: 2809: 2679: 2644: 2571: 2485: 2465: 2456: 2451: 2432: 2399: 2373: 2365: 2355: 2235: 2147: 2080: 2016: 1968: 1929: 1911: 1865: 1833: 1788: 1682: 1663: 1589: 1576: 814: 673: 632: 4891:

http://www.linux-netbook.com/video/bryan-lunduke-talks-about-why-linux-sucks-and-why-not/

4243: 3822: 3729:

Another weasel word appears here: "In September 2007, Walter S. Mossberg, writing in The

3300: 914: 4097: 2823:

underlying reasons can/should be included. (Also, Wine doesn't count: Wine != Linux.) --

4607: 4567: 4505: 4427: 4381: 4325: 4283: 4251: 4214: 4161: 4117: 3940: 3912: 3886: 3848: 3633: 3598: 2066:

I could point out that the same things could be said of many notable articles, such as

1269: 1090:

Thanks I don't know what the right procedure is for deleting articles, I will write at

688: 656: 5034:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

4984: 4715: 4630: 4398:

according to alexa it is on of bigger south african sites overall, rank 27. see also:

3939:

Sorry but the link to the article must be explicit otherwise it is original research.

2477: 2424: 2347: 2008: 1960: 5153: 4646: 4380:. The website/author isn't very notable so the opinions on it don't have due weight. 2628: 2176: 2098: 2030: 1978: 1939: 1896: 1700: 1638: 1455: 1446: 1416: 1392:

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

1352: 1335: 1304: 1222: 1153: 984: 952: 835: 714: 3406:

Heh, I don't mean the entire article... I mean the section about customer support.

5097: 4634: 4593: 4546: 4482: 4401: 4363: 4269: 4229: 4195: 4135: 4101: 3959: 3926: 3897: 3303:

and taking a few bugs reports and making generalized statements from them would be

2261:

Further, Linux has been accused of being "not ideal" for intermediate power users.

2191: 2071: 1072: 999: 941: 355: 4456: 4395: 2346:

No just that we are missing references to add more! If you have references as per

769:

The AfD debate on this article (see tag at top for link), while being closed as a

5093: 4754: 4039: 3689:

exaggerating the threat Linux poses and the rivalry between Linux and Windows.

3204: 2221:, but it was proposed to split it up into several of the Linux-related articles. 1041: 778: 646: 4905: 242: 221: 5069: 4941: 4867: 4810: 4688: 4674: 4658: 4638: 4463: 4087: 4007: 3871: 3826: 3648: 3614: 3582: 3532: 3453: 3373: 3308: 3166: 3150: 3119: 3030: 2916: 2855: 2805: 2674: 2665:

Guys: Firstly, there's no contradiction between 'Linux supports more hardware

2640: 2567: 2481: 2476:

Which is a great explanation for why good up-to-date refs are required as per

2460: 2428: 2395: 2351: 2231: 2227: 2210: 2143: 2076: 2012: 1964: 1925: 1907: 1861: 1829: 1784: 1678: 1659: 1572: 1275:

No, Knowledge (XXG) does not focus upon recent aspects of topics. Please see

686:

a point of view pertaining to Linux, and what these views specifically are. —

542: 345: 2846:

Linux not running some games and commercial apps using Manu Cornet as a ref:

5145: 5109: 5077: 5057: 4949: 4855: 4818: 4791: 4764: 4696: 4682: 4666: 4615: 4601: 4575: 4558: 4513: 4494: 4435: 4409: 4389: 4371: 4333: 4291: 4277: 4259: 4237: 4222: 4203: 4169: 4143: 4125: 4109: 4051: 4015: 3999: 3967: 3948: 3934: 3920: 3905: 3879: 3856: 3836: 3814: 3802: 3749: 3720: 3704: 3675: 3656: 3641: 3622: 3606: 3590: 3566: 3540: 3510: 3461: 3421: 3381: 3349: 3316: 3284: 3241: 3224: 3174: 3158: 3127: 3081: 3038: 2991: 2924: 2894: 2863: 2832: 2813: 2796: 2771: 2721: 2684: 2648: 2609: 2575: 2558: 2534: 2508: 2489: 2470: 2436: 2418: 2403: 2389: 2359: 2340: 2284: 2239: 2199: 2179: 2151: 2101: 2084: 2033: 2020: 1981: 1972: 1942: 1933: 1915: 1899: 1884: 1869: 1853: 1837: 1819: 1792: 1748: 1709: 1686: 1667: 1647: 1617: 1597: 1580: 1557: 1511: 1496: 1458: 1449: 1419: 1369: 1355: 1338: 1322: 1307: 1288: 1244: 1225: 1190: 1156: 1121: 1109:

I'm not sure I understand, this article should have been deleted since 2005

1103: 1084: 1049: 1033: 1019: 1002: 955: 944: 870: 838: 817: 791: 751: 717: 708: 697: 676: 659: 649: 635: 477:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: 259: 1563:

Don: I would invite you to put those criticisms in as long as you can find

4724: 3791:

desktop, so long as it stays good enough to remain on theirs. <ref: -->

829:

As the proposer of the AFD I think this article should be merged into the

4399: 1890:

May 2009, article is still POV and contains very little notable criticism

1875:

Thanks for the reply & explanation for choosing the cf image first. —

255: 1959:

Yes I did read it. I think it clearly meets Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on

1502:

Please see the previous discussions archived at the head of this page.

1844:

view in reader's mind for Linux). Thanks for informing me about tildes

5092:

criticism of the nonfree Linux kernels missing here? That is just why

5022:

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

3021:

As I indicated above I found refs for making general statements about

1131:

Well, what can I say? The POV pushers seem to be winning over here...

1299: 983:

No one now can easily fault the Embedded (or RTOS ) market for Linux

4177: 3783:

culture is presented as more important then a user focussed culture:

3581:, so it should cover servers, embedded devices, cell phones, etc. - 937:

and Linux to inform their platform decisions."...thus not DESKTOP.

1768:

that these are representative or useful to the article. Instead of

1760:

two images of Linux desktops to this article with the edit summary

4896:

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/14/05/19/1926213/linux-sucks-video

4723: 4714: 4191: 4058:

Fragmentation of distributions/paradox of choice/fallacy of choice

3893: 2496: 2218: 2206: 1588:"verifiable" so we don't count. P.S. I don't work for Microsoft. 830: 774: 538: 368: 349: 2142:

So, propose a merger, then. Where would you like it merged to? -

1168:

Linux lacks the performance for major business applications like

4028:

they are needed to be downloaded like in Windows and install to

3866:

list I would suggest it might make more sense to add one to the

1351:

Can you not see what I mean about these being fringe views now?-

1139:

regarding prior version of that OS, so why do we with this one?

4025: 978:

Server - Virtualised or real and for different traffic classes

550: 522: 462: 422: 339: 318: 184: 15: 2185:

May 2009 - I tried a dump merge and it was reversed by a bot!

4990:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

1548:

is a soft target, lucky to be mostly overlooked by hackers.

773:

had some strong suggestion for merging the information into

3647:

There haven't been any "oppose" votes here, so go ahead. -

3531:(unindent) I think you make good points there - I agree. - 2706:

blog that's positive towards Linux is somehow acceptable?

4975:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2542:

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/02/1317246

4580:

that's your personal interpretation. fact is when asked

2450:

Couple of things to point out. One: the sources on the

4968: 2637:

How Linux Supports More Devices Than Any Other OS, Ever

2514:

Tag request: nominated to be checked for its neutrality

1765: 1757: 1627:

I just suggested a reference on the discussion page of

450: 447: 445: 435: 2226:

I would suggest that you participate in the debate at

600: 160: 4931:

Reposts of self-published material still don't make

4470:

as weakness of the Linux platform (for developers):

2671:

Criticism_of_windows_vista#Digital_rights_management

2205:

And I reversed your dump of this whole article into

367:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 254:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 4985:

http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity

4582:

Q: Which part of Linux / X.Org is most troublesome?

4086:) motivates the problem with the fragmentation and 2209:. The matter of this merger is under discussion at 998:I would reword as suggested above and then AfD it. 614: 174: 3189:Another issue is the "customer support" section. 4606:It is not my interpretation it is his own words. 4376:You misunderstand what due weight is, please see 2368:in general. I propose to add a section like this: 3889:about problems in the kernel development process 2633:5 Reasons why Ubuntu 9.10 is better than Windows 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 4061: 3786: 878:Linux the kernel or distributions in general ?. 2427:to see the standards or referencing needed. - 4423:applies for me. Here is the relevant section 3205:https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/204898 2317:I've got two additional possible criticisms: 1261:This article should only be used to describe 8: 4906:http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/66970.html 4502:Criticism_of_Desktop_Linux#Audio_development 1634:10 key differences between Linux and Windows 188: 4963:I have just modified one external link on 4731:File:Kernel-panic.jpg as the lede graphic. 2625:Linux Hardware Support Better Than Windows 2294: 737: 426: 313: 216: 4861:Lunduke vid(s) in 'external link' section 4831:Article structure: Form follows function 4538:in short: fragmented API/ABI ecossystem 4042:otherwise this is as risky as in Windows. 4629: 3862:If you are referring to the link in the 991:is obsolete the day they gets published. 966:Supercomputer - Single image or clusters 433:Text and/or other creative content from 4098:Linux vs. Windows: Choice vs. Usability 2629:Get ready for the Vista/SUSE smackdown! 1762:two images added for aesthetic purposes 1537:journaling FS, asynchronous I/O, etc). 1027:WP:NOT#Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox 969:Desktop - lightweight e.g. OLPC or Cafe 315: 218: 4174:There are many refs (here another one 1924:There is a start made! More needed. - 5002:to let others know (documentation at 2350:then please go ahead and add them. - 276:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Computing 7: 4860: 3870:article than remove it from here. - 361:This article is within the scope of 248:This article is within the scope of 4031:Windows emulator is not an emulator 1724:The compiz fusion image is totally 744:2001:470:E918:0:BA97:5AFF:FECB:AA50 207:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 5136:. Is this a wikilink we can make? 4722:File:Linux kernel panic-v2.jpg or 4180:,<ref name=linuxfordevices: --> 1756:Background: On 20 February 2009 I 1179:appreciated rather than resisted. 823:Windows article and sub articles). 14: 5165:Low-importance Computing articles 4967:. Please take a moment to review 4425:Criticism_of_Desktop_Linux#Choice 4324:doesn't seem to have due weight. 4084:Decision_theory#Paradox_of_choice 3896:might be an note-worthy addition 2423:Sounds good. Have a read through 2213:. You can't just usurp the whole 1061:Knowledge (XXG):Proposed deletion 541:on March 12, 2015. The result of 381:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Linux 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 5063: 5013: 554: 526: 466: 348: 338: 317: 241: 220: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 4746:I disagree that the article is 4160:where it may be more relevant. 3894:http://lwn.net/Articles/392862/ 1656:Comparison of Windows and Linux 533:This article was nominated for 473:This article was nominated for 401:This article has been rated as 296:This article has been rated as 5180:High-importance Linux articles 5160:Start-Class Computing articles 3868:Criticism of Microsoft Windows 3676:18:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 3657:18:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 3642:18:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 3623:20:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC) 3607:20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC) 2490:22:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 2471:18:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 2437:15:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 2419:14:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 2404:13:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 2390:10:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 2360:15:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC) 2341:17:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC) 449:this edit]. The former page's 279:Template:WikiProject Computing 1: 4936:provided the requirements of 4616:22:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 4576:18:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 4559:16:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 4514:16:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 4495:14:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 4436:22:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 4410:21:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 4390:19:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 4372:22:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC) 4334:16:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC) 4292:22:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 4278:21:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 4260:19:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 4238:22:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC) 4223:16:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC) 4016:15:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 4000:03:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 3968:17:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC) 3880:23:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 3857:10:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 3767:Dominic Humphries confession 3128:16:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 3082:16:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 3039:13:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 2992:04:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 2925:02:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 2895:01:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 2864:14:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 2833:14:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 2814:14:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 2797:10:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 2772:09:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 2722:06:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 2685:02:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 2649:14:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 2610:13:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 2576:13:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 2559:08:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 2535:08:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 1710:09:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 1687:15:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 1668:13:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 1648:10:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 1603:Criticism of "perceived" lack 1203:My point is that the article 375:and see a list of open tasks. 270:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 5110:10:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC) 5078:18:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC) 5058:14:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC) 4602:10:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC) 4204:12:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 4170:23:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 4144:09:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 4126:19:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC) 4110:16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC) 4052:10:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC) 4020:If Windows software are not 3949:23:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 3935:16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC) 3921:22:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC) 3906:14:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 3750:10:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 3721:10:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 3705:07:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 3591:13:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 3567:05:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 3186:criticism no longer exists. 1618:03:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC) 1598:23:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 1379:. To quote the part exactly: 1122:19:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1104:19:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1085:18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 797:If it gets merged then some 650:22:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 3843:Criticism of Microsoft link 3579:Criticism of Linux desktops 3541:18:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC) 3511:16:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC) 3462:16:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC) 3422:14:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC) 3382:13:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC) 3350:13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC) 3317:13:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC) 3285:09:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC) 3242:07:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC) 3225:06:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC) 3199:with Linux-related forums. 3175:14:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC) 3159:14:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC) 2509:19:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 2495:Remembered something else: 1025:removed that according to: 807:And I don't want to hear it 636:00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 5201: 5185:WikiProject Linux articles 5175:Start-Class Linux articles 5096:is here to remove against 4960:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 4856:05:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 4819:15:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 4792:05:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 4765:09:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 4416:Criticism of Desktop Linux 4358:I can't follow you here : 4211:Criticism of Desktop Linux 4158:Criticism of Desktop Linux 4082:the also given wiki-link ( 3837:12:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3815:19:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 3546:Servers or desktops or...? 3181:Customer support and tense 2228:Talk:Linux#Merger_proposal 2211:Talk:Linux#Merger_proposal 1581:22:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1558:16:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1512:20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 1497:20:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 1459:16:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 1450:21:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 1163:criticisms seem to be that 1050:15:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC) 871:20:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC) 839:21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC) 818:18:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC) 792:21:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 718:12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 709:02:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 698:22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 677:18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC) 660:13:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 441:Criticism of desktop Linux 407:project's importance scale 384:Template:WikiProject Linux 302:project's importance scale 5146:04:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC) 4697:18:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC) 4683:16:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC) 4667:13:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC) 2883:List of software products 2457:Dependency hell#Solutions 2285:07:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 1885:14:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 1870:14:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 1854:13:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 1838:13:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 1820:13:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 1793:13:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 1749:13:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 1420:12:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1370:12:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1356:11:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1339:13:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1327:Yes, fine, that is about 1323:13:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1308:12:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1289:12:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1245:00:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1226:00:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1191:23:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 1157:21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 752:22:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC) 439:was copied or moved into 400: 333: 295: 236: 215: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 5128:furnish the public with 4588:The lack of a stable API 4527:The lack of a stable API 3980:List of missing software 3573:I agree, the article is 2240:01:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 2200:01:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 2180:17:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 2152:12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 2102:11:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 2085:00:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 1517:Criticizing a Sacred Cow 1034:04:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 1020:04:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 4956:External links modified 4950:13:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 4926:13:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 4457:Interview 05/07/11 with 3956:some stuff" from Apple. 2068:Criticism of Windows XP 2034:23:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 2021:22:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1982:22:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1973:16:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1943:12:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1934:13:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 1916:23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC) 1900:14:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 1233:Objections to evolution 1003:20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 963:Embedded including RTOS 956:16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 945:04:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 899:The whole paragraph of, 848:Knowledge (XXG):Merging 641:Give Verifiable Sources 487:, 1 February 2008, see 5170:All Computing articles 4729: 4720: 4650: 4079: 3794: 3759:"linux is not windows" 2760:Criticism of Microsoft 1011:Criticism by Microsoft 264:information technology 197:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 4727: 4719:Linux kernel panic-v2 4718: 4633: 4590:in the Linux kernel. 803:criticism of Windows" 497:, 15 April 2007, see 251:WikiProject Computing 201:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 100:Neutral point of view 4626:Article lead graphic 3769:Linux is NOT Windows 2915:I see your point. - 2750:Commons gallery here 1629:Criticism of Windows 975:Desktop - Enterprise 105:No original research 5134:alternative "facts" 5121:alternative "facts" 4994:parameter below to 3731:Wall Street Journal 2372:Linux suffers from 1631:. It's the article 1415:page and not here.- 1135:represented on WP. 1071:should take place. 507:, 15 Jan 2005, see 455:provide attribution 5046:InternetArchiveBot 4965:Criticism of Linux 4914:Criticism of Linux 4872:The Bryan Lunduke 4730: 4721: 4655:Criticism of Linux 4651: 4643:personal computers 4460:Lennart Poettering 4100:on the same topic 4024:found in Linux or 3575:Criticism of Linux 2623:Sure, no problem: 2497:Ioctl#Implications 1623:External reference 801:will look at the " 436:Criticism of Linux 282:Computing articles 203:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 25:Criticism of Linux 5115:Alternative Facts 4562: 4545:comment added by 4498: 4481:comment added by 4468:API fragmentation 4132:paradox of choice 4066:Paradox of Choice 3990:comment added by 3835: 3740:comment added by 3695:comment added by 3557:comment added by 3501:comment added by 3412:comment added by 3340:comment added by 3275:comment added by 3215:comment added by 2982:comment added by 2787:comment added by 2712:comment added by 2683: 2600:comment added by 2549:comment added by 2525:comment added by 2469: 2308: 2299:comment added by 1823: 1806:comment added by 1752: 1735:comment added by 1499: 1487:comment added by 1477:Page Not Needed ? 1296:Microsoft Windows 874: 857:comment added by 754: 742:comment added by 623: 622: 549: 548: 545:was not to merge. 521: 520: 517: 516: 461: 460: 421: 420: 417: 416: 413: 412: 364:WikiProject Linux 312: 311: 308: 307: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 5192: 5090:Richard Stallman 5067: 5066: 5056: 5047: 5020: 5017: 5016: 5009: 4874:Why Linux Sucks? 4871: 4561: 4539: 4497: 4475: 4077: 4002: 3829: 3752: 3707: 3569: 3513: 3424: 3352: 3287: 3227: 3072:good sources. -- 2994: 2799: 2724: 2677: 2612: 2561: 2537: 2463: 2377: 2364:Ah, it's called 1822: 1800: 1751: 1729: 1482: 1413:History of Linux 873: 851: 785: 782: 619: 618: 604: 558: 557: 551: 530: 529: 523: 479: 478: 470: 463: 438: 430: 429: 423: 389: 388: 385: 382: 379: 358: 353: 352: 342: 335: 334: 329: 321: 314: 284: 283: 280: 277: 274: 245: 238: 237: 232: 224: 217: 200: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 5200: 5199: 5195: 5194: 5193: 5191: 5190: 5189: 5150: 5149: 5117: 5086: 5064: 5050: 5045: 5018: 5014: 5003: 4973:this simple FaQ 4958: 4940:can be made. - 4865: 4863: 4833: 4711:Content forking 4628: 4584:they answered: 4540: 4476: 4394:you are wrong: 4096:some older ref 4078: 4073: 4060: 3985: 3982: 3891: 3845: 3779:. The existing 3773:linux community 3761: 3735: 3690: 3686: 3552: 3548: 3496: 3407: 3335: 3270: 3210: 3183: 2977: 2782: 2707: 2595: 2544: 2520: 2516: 2452:dependency hell 2374:dependency hell 2371: 2366:Dependency hell 2315: 2301:190.139.241.101 2272: 2262: 2248: 2246:Concerning NPOV 2187: 1892: 1801: 1730: 1722: 1708: 1646: 1625: 1610:121.209.145.205 1605: 1519: 1479: 1399: 1231:comparison see 1129: 1057: 1013: 880: 852: 783: 780: 767: 700: 643: 628: 626:Created article 561: 555: 527: 434: 427: 403:High-importance 386: 383: 380: 377: 376: 354: 347: 328:High‑importance 327: 281: 278: 275: 272: 271: 230: 198: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 5198: 5196: 5188: 5187: 5182: 5177: 5172: 5167: 5162: 5152: 5151: 5116: 5113: 5102:124.217.188.67 5085: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5040: 5039: 5032: 4988: 4987: 4979:Added archive 4957: 4954: 4953: 4952: 4909: 4908: 4903: 4898: 4893: 4888: 4883: 4862: 4859: 4832: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4737: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4702: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4647:supercomputers 4627: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4604: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4113: 4112: 4094: 4071: 4059: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4044:124.217.188.67 4018: 3981: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3890: 3887:Ryan C. Gordon 3884: 3883: 3882: 3844: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3760: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3724: 3723: 3685: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3660: 3659: 3626: 3625: 3594: 3593: 3547: 3544: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3414:196.210.145.50 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3342:196.210.145.50 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3277:196.210.237.77 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3245: 3244: 3217:196.210.237.77 3182: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2817: 2816: 2775: 2774: 2754: 2753: 2740: 2739: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2667:out of the box 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2579: 2578: 2515: 2512: 2493: 2492: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2378: 2369: 2328: 2327: 2323: 2314: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2291: 2270: 2260: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2223: 2222: 2186: 2183: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2095: 2091: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2027: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1919: 1918: 1891: 1888: 1873: 1872: 1841: 1840: 1796: 1795: 1779: 1778: 1721: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1704: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1671: 1670: 1642: 1624: 1621: 1604: 1601: 1585: 1584: 1583:(A Linux user) 1518: 1515: 1504:Colonel Warden 1478: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1395: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1362:Colonel Warden 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1332: 1315:Colonel Warden 1281:Colonel Warden 1270:Linux (kernel) 1259: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1237:Colonel Warden 1219: 1215: 1211: 1201: 1183:Colonel Warden 1176: 1175: 1172: 1165: 1164: 1128: 1125: 1107: 1106: 1056: 1053: 1037: 1036: 1012: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 992: 988: 981: 980: 979: 976: 973: 972:Desktop - Home 970: 967: 964: 927: 926: 925: 924: 918: 911: 901: 900: 897: 891: 879: 876: 844: 843: 842: 841: 827: 824: 810: 799:windows fanboy 766: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 711: 681: 664: 663: 642: 639: 627: 624: 621: 620: 559: 547: 546: 543:the discussion 531: 519: 518: 515: 514: 513: 512: 502: 492: 471: 459: 458: 453:now serves to 431: 419: 418: 415: 414: 411: 410: 399: 393: 392: 390: 387:Linux articles 373:the discussion 360: 359: 343: 331: 330: 322: 310: 309: 306: 305: 298:Low-importance 294: 288: 287: 285: 268:the discussion 246: 234: 233: 231:Low‑importance 225: 213: 212: 206: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5197: 5186: 5183: 5181: 5178: 5176: 5173: 5171: 5168: 5166: 5163: 5161: 5158: 5157: 5155: 5148: 5147: 5143: 5139: 5138:49.195.68.154 5135: 5131: 5127: 5122: 5114: 5112: 5111: 5107: 5103: 5099: 5095: 5091: 5083: 5079: 5075: 5071: 5062: 5061: 5060: 5059: 5054: 5049: 5048: 5037: 5033: 5030: 5026: 5025: 5024: 5023: 5011: 5007: 5001: 4997: 4993: 4986: 4982: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4974: 4970: 4966: 4961: 4955: 4951: 4947: 4943: 4939: 4934: 4930: 4929: 4928: 4927: 4923: 4919: 4915: 4907: 4904: 4902: 4899: 4897: 4894: 4892: 4889: 4887: 4884: 4882: 4879: 4878: 4877: 4875: 4869: 4858: 4857: 4853: 4849: 4844: 4841: 4837: 4830: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4793: 4789: 4785: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4766: 4763: 4761: 4757: 4756: 4749: 4748:by definition 4745: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4738: 4726: 4717: 4712: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4698: 4694: 4690: 4686: 4685: 4684: 4680: 4676: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4664: 4660: 4656: 4648: 4644: 4640: 4636: 4632: 4625: 4617: 4613: 4609: 4605: 4603: 4599: 4595: 4591: 4589: 4583: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4573: 4569: 4564: 4563: 4560: 4556: 4552: 4548: 4544: 4536: 4533: 4528: 4522: 4519: 4515: 4511: 4507: 4503: 4500: 4499: 4496: 4492: 4488: 4484: 4480: 4474: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4458: 4455: 4437: 4433: 4429: 4426: 4422: 4417: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4407: 4403: 4400: 4397: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4387: 4383: 4379: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4369: 4365: 4362: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4275: 4271: 4266: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4257: 4253: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4201: 4197: 4193: 4190: 4188: 4185: 4179: 4178:fragmentation 4176: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4145: 4141: 4137: 4133: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4123: 4119: 4115: 4114: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4080: 4076: 4070: 4067: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4037: 4033: 4032: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4001: 3997: 3993: 3992:59.94.131.165 3989: 3979: 3969: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3946: 3942: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3932: 3928: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3888: 3885: 3881: 3877: 3873: 3869: 3865: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3854: 3850: 3842: 3838: 3833: 3828: 3824: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3807:141.52.232.84 3804: 3798: 3797: 3793: 3790: 3785: 3784: 3782: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3758: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3732: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3722: 3718: 3714: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3684:"extensively" 3683: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3545: 3543: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3503:41.174.22.243 3500: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3207: 3206: 3200: 3196: 3193: 3190: 3187: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2779: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2756: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2742: 2741: 2736: 2735: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2714:41.177.72.235 2711: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2686: 2681: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2602:41.177.72.235 2599: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2543: 2538: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2513: 2511: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2467: 2462: 2458: 2453: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2370: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2324: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2312: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2292: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2269: 2267: 2259: 2256: 2251: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2184: 2182: 2181: 2178: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2103: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2035: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1983: 1980: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1944: 1941: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1898: 1889: 1887: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1727: 1719: 1711: 1707: 1702: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1645: 1640: 1636: 1635: 1630: 1622: 1620: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1602: 1600: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1545: 1541: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1527: 1523: 1516: 1514: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1500: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1476: 1460: 1457: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1448: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1421: 1418: 1414: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1398: 1394: 1393: 1378: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1354: 1350: 1340: 1337: 1333: 1330: 1329:Windows Vista 1326: 1325: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1306: 1301: 1297: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1273: 1272:page anyway. 1271: 1266: 1265: 1260: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1207: 1202: 1199: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1173: 1171: 1167: 1166: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1155: 1150: 1146: 1143: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1126: 1124: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1054: 1052: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1035: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1018: 1010: 1004: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 986: 982: 977: 974: 971: 968: 965: 962: 961: 959: 958: 957: 954: 949: 948: 947: 946: 943: 938: 936: 931: 922: 919: 915: 912: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 898: 895: 892: 889: 886: 885: 884: 877: 875: 872: 868: 864: 860: 859:Bryce Carmony 856: 849: 840: 837: 832: 828: 825: 821: 820: 819: 816: 811: 808: 804: 800: 796: 795: 794: 793: 790: 787: 786: 776: 772: 765:Keep or Merge 764: 753: 749: 745: 741: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 719: 716: 712: 710: 707: 702: 701: 699: 696: 694: 690: 685: 680: 679: 678: 675: 671: 668: 667: 666: 665: 661: 658: 654: 653: 652: 651: 648: 640: 638: 637: 634: 625: 617: 613: 610: 607: 603: 599: 595: 592: 589: 586: 583: 580: 577: 574: 571: 567: 564: 563:Find sources: 560: 553: 552: 544: 540: 536: 532: 525: 524: 510: 506: 503: 500: 496: 493: 490: 486: 483: 482: 481: 480: 476: 472: 469: 465: 464: 456: 452: 448: 446: 444: 442: 437: 432: 425: 424: 408: 404: 398: 395: 394: 391: 374: 370: 366: 365: 357: 351: 346: 344: 341: 337: 336: 332: 326: 323: 320: 316: 303: 299: 293: 290: 289: 286: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 252: 247: 244: 240: 239: 235: 229: 226: 223: 219: 214: 210: 204: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 5129: 5125: 5118: 5098:binary blobs 5088:Why are the 5087: 5044: 5041: 5021: 5012: 4999: 4995: 4991: 4989: 4962: 4959: 4910: 4873: 4864: 4848:Aladdin Sane 4845: 4842: 4838: 4834: 4784:Aladdin Sane 4753: 4752: 4747: 4728:Kernel-panic 4710: 4654: 4652: 4635:Linux kernel 4587: 4585: 4581: 4541:— Preceding 4532:changing ABI 4531: 4526: 4523: 4477:— Preceding 4471: 4467: 4466:creator, on 4359: 4131: 4091: 4062: 4035: 4030: 4021: 3983: 3954: 3892: 3863: 3846: 3799: 3796: 3795: 3789: 3787: 3778: 3774: 3770: 3766: 3765: 3762: 3742:41.177.8.204 3713:DanielPharos 3697:41.177.72.52 3687: 3668:DanielPharos 3627: 3595: 3578: 3574: 3559:41.177.72.79 3549: 3530: 3305:WP:SYNTHESIS 3234:DanielPharos 3208: 3201: 3197: 3194: 3191: 3188: 3184: 3148: 3074:DanielPharos 2984:41.174.7.183 2887:DanielPharos 2825:DanielPharos 2789:41.177.8.217 2780: 2776: 2764:Aladdin Sane 2745: 2666: 2539: 2517: 2501:DanielPharos 2494: 2449: 2411:DanielPharos 2382:DanielPharos 2333:DanielPharos 2329: 2316: 2295:— Preceding 2293:Not really. 2277:88.77.189.22 2273: 2265: 2263: 2254: 2252: 2249: 2190:changes? -- 2188: 2174: 2072:Ford Model T 1893: 1874: 1842: 1797: 1770:edit warring 1761: 1725: 1723: 1632: 1626: 1606: 1586: 1550:DonPMitchell 1546: 1542: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1501: 1489:59.92.143.34 1480: 1397: 1391: 1390: 1328: 1277:WP:RECENTISM 1263: 1262: 1205: 1204: 1181: 1177: 1151: 1147: 1144: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1130: 1108: 1064: 1058: 1038: 1014: 995: 939: 934: 928: 913:The link to 902: 881: 853:— Preceding 845: 806: 802: 798: 779: 770: 768: 738:— Preceding 687: 683: 670:good points! 669: 644: 629: 611: 605: 597: 590: 584: 578: 572: 562: 504: 494: 484: 402: 362: 356:Linux portal 297: 249: 209:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 5094:Linux-libre 5084:Linux-libre 5006:Sourcecheck 4916:article. -- 4639:smartphones 3986:—Preceding 3736:—Preceding 3691:—Preceding 3553:—Preceding 3497:—Preceding 3408:—Preceding 3336:—Preceding 3271:—Preceding 3211:—Preceding 2978:—Preceding 2783:—Preceding 2708:—Preceding 2596:—Preceding 2551:41.177.8.22 2545:—Preceding 2527:41.177.8.22 2521:—Preceding 2326:halfway?"). 2090:criticism). 1802:—Preceding 1731:—Preceding 1699:Good work! 1483:—Preceding 788: 588:free images 199:Start-class 148:free images 31:not a forum 5154:Categories 5053:Report bug 4918:Kevjonesin 4464:PulseAudio 4396:alexa info 4088:Overchoice 4074:Jun Auza, 4069:paralysis. 4038:run it as 4034:, but you 2070:, or even 2009:notability 1961:notability 1877:Konsole4.2 1846:Konsole4.2 1808:Konsole4.2 1737:Konsole4.2 1726:irrelevant 1590:Biscuittin 1565:verifiable 985:(examples) 917:criticism. 815:Hendrixski 674:Hendrixski 633:Hendrixski 509:discussion 499:discussion 489:discussion 5130:the facts 5036:this tool 5029:this tool 4608:IRWolfie- 4568:IRWolfie- 4506:IRWolfie- 4428:IRWolfie- 4382:IRWolfie- 4326:IRWolfie- 4284:IRWolfie- 4252:IRWolfie- 4215:IRWolfie- 4162:IRWolfie- 4118:IRWolfie- 3941:IRWolfie- 3913:IRWolfie- 3849:IRWolfie- 3803:usability 3634:IRWolfie- 3599:IRWolfie- 2746:Criticism 2215:consensus 1775:consensus 920:The link 689:H.7004.Vx 657:Lankiveil 273:Computing 260:computing 256:computers 228:Computing 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 5042:Cheers.— 4555:contribs 4543:unsigned 4491:contribs 4479:unsigned 4248:WP:SYNTH 3988:unsigned 3864:See also 3821:is very 3738:unsigned 3693:unsigned 3555:unsigned 3499:unsigned 3410:unsigned 3338:unsigned 3273:unsigned 3213:unsigned 2980:unsigned 2785:unsigned 2710:unsigned 2598:unsigned 2547:unsigned 2523:unsigned 2297:unsigned 2255:at least 2177:Localzuk 2099:Localzuk 2031:Localzuk 1979:Localzuk 1940:Localzuk 1897:Localzuk 1816:contribs 1804:unsigned 1745:contribs 1733:unsigned 1569:Fancruft 1544:at IBM? 1485:unsigned 1456:Localzuk 1447:Localzuk 1417:Localzuk 1353:Localzuk 1336:Localzuk 1305:Localzuk 1223:Localzuk 1154:Localzuk 1114:AdrianTM 1096:AdrianTM 1031:AdrianTM 1017:AdrianTM 953:Localzuk 867:contribs 855:unsigned 836:Localzuk 740:unsigned 715:Localzuk 706:AdrianTM 475:deletion 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 4992:checked 4969:my edit 4933:WP:ELNO 4641:, over 4594:Shaddim 4547:Shaddim 4483:Shaddim 4421:WP:DGAF 4402:Shaddim 4364:Shaddim 4270:Shaddim 4230:Shaddim 4196:Shaddim 4136:Shaddim 4102:Shaddim 4022:locally 3960:Shaddim 3953:quote: 3927:Shaddim 3898:Shaddim 3781:hackers 3775:to the 3630:be bold 2738:enough. 2322:Linux.) 2313:2 more? 2192:Diddy29 1895:exist?- 1377:WP:NPOV 1218:things. 1214:often). 1198:WP:NPOV 1073:Puchiko 1000:Ttiotsw 951:linux.- 942:Ttiotsw 594:WP refs 582:scholar 535:merging 451:history 405:on the 300:on the 154:WP refs 142:scholar 5126:really 5000:failed 4938:WP:SPS 4755:Tayste 4537:-: --> 4378:WP:DUE 3577:, not 1445:past.- 1300:Mac OS 1264:recent 1092:WP:AfD 1069:WP:AfD 1042:Ricgal 935:Server 647:Luksuh 631:work. 566:Google 505:delete 262:, and 205:scale. 126:Google 5070:Ahunt 4942:Ahunt 4868:Ahunt 4811:Ahunt 4760:edits 4689:Ahunt 4675:Aoidh 4659:Ahunt 4244:WP:OR 4036:ŃEVER 4008:Ahunt 3872:Ahunt 3827:simxp 3823:WP:OR 3777:users 3649:Ahunt 3628:I'll 3615:Ahunt 3583:Ahunt 3533:Ahunt 3454:Ahunt 3374:Ahunt 3309:Ahunt 3301:WP:OR 3167:Ahunt 3151:Ahunt 3120:Ahunt 3031:Ahunt 3027:games 2950:this. 2917:Ahunt 2856:Ahunt 2852:games 2806:Ahunt 2762:). — 2675:simxp 2641:Ahunt 2568:Ahunt 2482:Ahunt 2461:simxp 2429:Ahunt 2396:Ahunt 2352:Ahunt 2232:Ahunt 2219:Linux 2207:Linux 2144:Ahunt 2077:Ahunt 2013:Ahunt 1965:Ahunt 1926:Ahunt 1908:Ahunt 1862:Ahunt 1830:Ahunt 1785:Ahunt 1766:agree 1758:added 1720:Image 1679:Ahunt 1660:Ahunt 1573:Ahunt 1210:view. 1206:can't 1081:email 831:Linux 775:Linux 609:JSTOR 570:books 539:Linux 537:with 443:with 378:Linux 369:Linux 325:Linux 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 5142:talk 5106:talk 5074:talk 4996:true 4946:talk 4922:talk 4852:talk 4815:talk 4788:talk 4693:talk 4679:talk 4663:talk 4612:talk 4598:talk 4572:talk 4551:talk 4510:talk 4487:talk 4432:talk 4406:talk 4386:talk 4368:talk 4330:talk 4288:talk 4274:talk 4256:talk 4234:talk 4219:talk 4200:talk 4166:talk 4140:talk 4122:talk 4106:talk 4048:talk 4040:root 4012:talk 3996:talk 3964:talk 3945:talk 3931:talk 3917:talk 3902:talk 3876:talk 3853:talk 3832:talk 3811:talk 3746:talk 3717:talk 3701:talk 3672:talk 3653:talk 3638:talk 3619:talk 3603:talk 3587:talk 3563:talk 3537:talk 3507:talk 3458:talk 3418:talk 3378:talk 3346:talk 3313:talk 3281:talk 3238:talk 3221:talk 3171:talk 3155:talk 3124:talk 3078:talk 3035:talk 3029:. - 3025:and 3023:apps 2988:talk 2921:talk 2891:talk 2860:talk 2850:and 2848:Apps 2829:talk 2810:talk 2793:talk 2768:talk 2718:talk 2680:talk 2645:talk 2606:talk 2572:talk 2555:talk 2531:talk 2505:talk 2486:talk 2480:! - 2478:WP:V 2466:talk 2433:talk 2425:WP:V 2415:talk 2400:talk 2386:talk 2356:talk 2348:WP:V 2337:talk 2305:talk 2281:talk 2236:talk 2230:. - 2196:talk 2148:talk 2081:talk 2017:talk 1969:talk 1930:talk 1912:talk 1881:talk 1866:talk 1850:talk 1834:talk 1812:talk 1789:talk 1741:talk 1683:talk 1664:talk 1658:. - 1614:talk 1594:talk 1577:talk 1571:. - 1554:talk 1508:talk 1493:talk 1366:talk 1360:No. 1319:talk 1285:talk 1241:talk 1187:talk 1118:talk 1100:talk 1077:Talk 1055:PROD 1046:talk 863:talk 846:Per 771:keep 748:talk 693:talk 602:FENS 576:news 495:keep 485:keep 397:High 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 5010:). 4998:or 4983:to 4782:— 4645:to 4194:). 4026:BSD 2266:not 1701:Ben 1639:Ben 1170:ERP 1127:Wow 1112:-- 1094:-- 1029:-- 784:yan 781:Ark 684:has 616:TWL 292:Low 176:TWL 5156:: 5144:) 5108:) 5076:) 5068:- 5008:}} 5004:{{ 4948:) 4924:) 4854:) 4817:) 4790:) 4695:) 4681:) 4665:) 4614:) 4600:) 4574:) 4557:) 4553:• 4512:) 4504:. 4493:) 4489:• 4462:, 4434:) 4408:) 4388:) 4370:) 4332:) 4290:) 4276:) 4258:) 4250:. 4246:, 4236:) 4221:) 4213:. 4202:) 4168:) 4142:) 4124:) 4108:) 4090:: 4072:— 4050:) 4014:) 3998:) 3966:) 3947:) 3933:) 3919:) 3904:) 3878:) 3855:) 3813:) 3805:. 3748:) 3719:) 3703:) 3674:) 3666:-- 3655:) 3640:) 3621:) 3605:) 3589:) 3565:) 3539:) 3509:) 3460:) 3420:) 3380:) 3348:) 3315:) 3283:) 3240:) 3223:) 3173:) 3157:) 3126:) 3080:) 3037:) 2990:) 2923:) 2893:) 2885:-- 2862:) 2854:- 2831:) 2812:) 2795:) 2770:) 2720:) 2647:) 2635:, 2631:, 2627:, 2608:) 2574:) 2557:) 2533:) 2507:) 2488:) 2435:) 2417:) 2409:-- 2402:) 2388:) 2358:) 2339:) 2331:-- 2307:) 2283:) 2238:) 2198:) 2150:) 2083:) 2019:) 1971:) 1932:) 1914:) 1883:) 1868:) 1852:) 1836:) 1818:) 1814:• 1791:) 1747:) 1743:• 1685:) 1666:) 1616:) 1596:) 1579:) 1556:) 1510:) 1495:) 1368:) 1321:) 1287:) 1279:. 1243:) 1189:) 1120:) 1102:) 1083:) 1048:) 996:me 869:) 865:• 750:) 596:) 258:, 156:) 54:; 5140:( 5104:( 5100:. 5072:( 5055:) 5051:( 5038:. 5031:. 5019:Y 4944:( 4920:( 4870:: 4866:@ 4850:( 4813:( 4786:( 4762:) 4758:( 4691:( 4677:( 4661:( 4649:. 4610:( 4596:( 4570:( 4549:( 4508:( 4485:( 4430:( 4404:( 4384:( 4366:( 4328:( 4286:( 4272:( 4254:( 4232:( 4217:( 4198:( 4164:( 4138:( 4120:( 4104:( 4046:( 4010:( 3994:( 3962:( 3943:( 3929:( 3915:( 3900:( 3874:( 3851:( 3834:) 3830:( 3809:( 3744:( 3715:( 3699:( 3670:( 3651:( 3636:( 3617:( 3601:( 3585:( 3561:( 3535:( 3505:( 3456:( 3416:( 3376:( 3344:( 3311:( 3279:( 3236:( 3219:( 3169:( 3153:( 3122:( 3076:( 3033:( 2986:( 2919:( 2889:( 2858:( 2827:( 2808:( 2791:( 2766:( 2716:( 2682:) 2678:( 2643:( 2604:( 2570:( 2553:( 2529:( 2503:( 2484:( 2468:) 2464:( 2431:( 2413:( 2398:( 2384:( 2354:( 2335:( 2303:( 2279:( 2234:( 2194:( 2146:( 2079:( 2015:( 1967:( 1928:( 1910:( 1879:( 1864:( 1848:( 1832:( 1810:( 1787:( 1739:( 1706:C 1703:/ 1681:( 1662:( 1644:C 1641:/ 1612:( 1592:( 1575:( 1552:( 1506:( 1491:( 1364:( 1317:( 1283:( 1239:( 1200:. 1185:( 1116:( 1098:( 1079:- 1075:( 1063:: 1044:( 896:. 861:( 809:. 746:( 695:) 691:( 662:. 612:· 606:· 598:· 591:· 585:· 579:· 573:· 568:( 511:. 501:. 491:. 409:. 304:. 211:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index