Talk:Linux

Linux: A family of operating systems all running on the same kernel, or a single OS?

The lead currently reads:

Linux is a Unix-like and mostly POSIX-compliant computer operating system assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on 5 October 1991 by Linus Torvalds. The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux, which has led to some controversy.

This speaks of Linux as a single operating system. However, there are various Linux distributions in the world that may differ radically from each other. Standard "traditional" distributions like Debian (or even Tizen on mobile devices), which core components consist mainly of GNU and freedesktop.org components), less orthodox mobile-oriented distributions like Android (consists mainly of in-house developed and several BSD-derived components) and FirefoxOS (consists mainly of a HAL, a browser rendering engine[which is basically the userland runtime for web browsing as well as installed apps], an XUL engine[for apps with XUL based user interfaces] and a touch-oriented shell) , and embedded distributions which may contain barely anything beyond the kernel and BusyBox, all differ so fundamentally that it may not be called "one" operating system. Therefore I propose editing the lead to read:

Linux is a family of Unix-like and mostly POSIX-compliant computer operating systems assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on 5 October 1991 by Linus Torvalds. The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux, which has led to some controversy, to refer to Linux operating systems that incorporate GNU userland as a major component.

I would like to receive views and feedback from the Wikipedia community, be it in favor of, against, or extending upon/enhancing this change, and hope that through discussion a conclusion as close to the fact as possible may be obtained. Busukxuan (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hm, this proposal looks good to me, but of course let's wait for other editors' opinions. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that it is wrong: Linux is not a family of OSs. We have discussed long and hard and have concluded here that this article is named 'Linux' because that is, in everyday speech, the WP:COMMONNAME of the thing the article is about. In everyday speech, I can say that "my computer is running Linux." When I say this, I am using the word 'Linux' correctly, and I am not referring to a family of OSs, but to the actual, single OS on my computer. This may be irritating to people who would like the world to be different, to those who would like people to use more precise language when they speak, and to those who would like people to mention 'GNU' more often. Unfortunately, we don't write articles about what people ought to say, do, and know, but about what people actually say, do, and know, based on what we find in reliable, published sources (WP:RS). It might be true to say that "There is a family of operating systems that are based on the Linux kernel," but that is not what is being proposed here, and if it was it would not be clear how well that introduces the WP:COMMONNAME that this article is about. --Nigelj (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If you say your computer is running "the Linux operating system" and are not using "operating system" as a synonym to "kernel", then you are saying something factually wrong. There is no piece of software called "Linux" which is anything more than a kernel. (Count in e.g. util-linux-ng if you want and then it's "kernel plus a few C programs"; doesn't change my point.) The correct fact behind what these uninformed people are claiming is: they're running one of the handful of operating systems (there are literally hundreds if not thousands of GNU/Linux distributions, but only a handful are used in practice) made up of a combination of GNU programs, the Linux kernel, the X.Org windowing system, and a few more system-near components by third parties (say wpa-supplicant) which one would count as components of the "operating system" and not "applications" running on it (a blurry line, surely). They are using the word "Linux" to refer to any such operating system. Making this article about that collection of operating systems is fine, even if the word "Linux" is a technical misnomer for them, if popular usage has adopted this (but obviously one would expect the article to mention this technical error on the side of the masses); however pretending that there is one piece of software --one operating system-- by the name "Linux" is factually wrong, no matter how many ignorant people imply that. 80.72.254.242 (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the Linux operating system (just as there is no such thing as the GNU/Linux operating system). Are there any real arguments to the contrary? Careless and imprecision on the part of people talking about it isn't a reason for Wikipedia to use incorrect terminology. I suspect that some of the people claiming there is a single "Linux" OS want to build their reputation and/or business around a single, strong brand. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that this article is indeed about the everyday "Linux" we talk about. Note that there are also many people who refer to any OS running the Linux kernel as Linux in general, but I agree that most people who don't know much about Linux simply mean the "traditional" Linux when they say it. However, that doesn't solve the problem. "Traditional" Linux is itself a diverse group of operating systems. I know they're all similar, but

• They are similar, not identical.

They probably have the same kernel, all contain GNU coreutils, and an X server, but the user facing side is part of an OS, and if not officially recognized as a "spin" or "flavor", different systems with different DEs and extra in-house components should be considered separate OSes. Besides, even desktop Linux distros are not always binary compatible(not talking about package formats), and sometimes the incompatibility stems beyond just library versions. There are also the init systems: sysvinit, systemd, OpenRC(Gentoo), Upstart(being dumped by Ubuntu in favor of systemd) . Besides, Maui even tries to create a distro that replaces X with Wayland. Also, look at Ubuntu, it's quite a radical distro, and it's planning to use Mir instead of Wayland.

• Other Unix-like OSes can be very similar too

Other open source Unix-like and Unix OSes like the BSDs, Darwin(open source base of OS X) and OpenIndiana ("continuation" of OpenSolaris) can all run the X server and X desktop environments, and the "coreutils" are of course very similar, though they might not be GNU coreutils but ones they have developed themselves. Note that Debian GNU/Hurd runs on essentially same userland components as Debian GNU/Linux, and that's GNU, not Linux.

Besides, what is the common meaning of "Linux" anyway,

• Contains GNU and freedesktop.org and several other components, runs on the Linux kernel, or
• Desktop oriented, runs on the Linux kernel, or
• Something else Busukxuan (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The part that mentions that the FSF uses the term GNU/Linux to refer to the combination of Linux and GNU is very important (so as to avoid the impression that the GNU project and FSF wants to claim credit for the kernel, which they don't), but it should also be added (possibly next to that sentence) that this the most common form in which Linux (which is a kernel and not an OS or anything else, despite that most involved wikipedians seem happy to bend the policy on reliable sources to the point of not only accepting and divulging a widespread misconception, but also downplaying the role of the GNU project which not only is a bigger and more important part of what they call “Linux” than the actual Linux, but is responsible for creating the free software movement which makes Wikipedia possible in the first place) is used for desktop, laptop and server computers. In short: The FSF claims proper credit for the very closely related GNU project by calling the OS GNU/Linux when GNU is actually used, but combining GNU with Linux is the rule rather than the exception. QrTTf7fH (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC).

The idea that Linux is only used to refer to the kernel is inaccurate. That new accounts continue to come here and try to claim otherwise is odd, because even on the surface that statement is false. It is not a "misconception", nor is it "bending the policy on reliable sources." That would only be true if you view it through the lens of a minority POV, but the problem with that is that reliable sources contradict and reject this minority opinion. Wikipedia does not base content off of minority POV agendas based on opinions and cherry-picked logic, and reliable sources contradict what you're saying wholesale. - Aoidh (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As wholesale as the term Linux is used to describe an the otherwise know as GNU/Linux software, in what way is the GNU/Linux name based on "cherry-picked logic"? --Davidnotcoulthard(talk:Davidnotcoulthard)

Erm, I think his point is just that we should emphasize that the most common form of Linux is that which comes with GNU userland as a core component. Anyway we better get this clear first because depending on definition Linux may or may not always incorporate GNU coreutils as core. In the question I asked above (in the bullet/unordered list), if the answer is the first one then so called "GNU/Linux" is not only the most common but the only form of Linux(the OS, not the kernel).

Busukxuan (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

" if the answer is the first one then so called "GNU/Linux" is not only the most common but the only form of Linux(the OS, not the kernel)." A kernel called Linux was created, and the only rest-of-OS that worked well with it that's Free Software were the ones from GNU. Based on the Definition of Linus, the OS, on the page, its defining component is the kernel. Thus, when another OS uses Linux as a kernel (Android, anyone?), without GNU and freedesktop.org, then there'd be >1 form of Linux. You may argue that most people think of "Linux the OS" meant Linux+GNU+Freedesktop.org, at the very, very least the Linux page should at least say so. I made it say that the defining components are Linux and GNU but the edit was reverted for some reason. If GNU and Freedesktop.org aren't defining components, I don't see the point behind the "People think of it as Linux+GNU+Freedesktop.org anyway" argument. [[User:Davidnotcoulthard|Davidnotcoulthard]](talk:[[User talk:Davidnotcoulthard|Davidnotcoulthard]]) (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 11:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not true that it's uncommon to refer to the kernel that Linus Torvalds created as Linux, either. Linus Torvalds is widely referred to as the creator of Linux, and the Tux logo as Linux's logo. Neither would be true if you were talking about some larger operating system containing Linux as a component. Count Truthstein (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this discussion has stagnated for 21 days. It seems, at least from the responds above, there are more people in favor of this change than there are people against it, but a more fundamental problem has surfaced: what is Linux? In my opinion this should be made clear before the edit, and this question will be given its own section. Busukxuan (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion I think the proposed edit is not wrong. Actually, I think the page on Linux should contain all used meanings of the word, with the as-of-now-current GNU/Linux article a part of that article.

I particularly like the way the Hacker_(term) page looks. "Hacker" may more often than not be used, by reliable sources (WordPress, NBC, NY Times, etc), to describe what some say should be described as "Crackers". However, the article gives ample room to both meanings of the term. I don't see why we shouldn't have that in the Linux article. I think the article should perhaps start with a list like the one in Hacker_(term), describe all meanings. One entry in the list should describe the kernel (and then link to its article), another as a viewed-by-some-as-an OS family, and another as the 'operating system'. The rest of the article then goes explaining the OS, including the naming controversy (which should be merged into the article).

I also don't see what's wrong in calling the OS GNU/Linux. At the end of the day I think the argument is not about which of the 2 terms is correct, but whether "Linux" is, with the general consensus being that GNU/Linux is correct but Linux is easier and also correct. So I don't see why changes made to instances of the word "Linux" into "GNU/Linux" in Wikipedia articles should be reverted over that reason alone. It might be part of an agenda (the entire GNU part of the OS is), but it isn't wrong (nor do the sources that use "Linux" claim that "GNU/Linux" is incorrect, as far as my reading goes). It's not the general consensus, but that doesn't mean that other opinions should be ignored (again, take a look at Hacker).

The Linux article should start with:

Linux is a term used to describe:

• a Unix-like computer operating system kernel. The Linux kernel is the most widely used operating system kernel in the world; the Linux operating system uses it and deployed on both traditional computer systems, usually in the form of Linux distributions,[8] and on embedded devices such as routers. The Android operating system for tablet computers and smartphones is also based atop the Linux kernel. See Linux_kernel
• A Unix-like and mostly POSIX-compliant computer operating system assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel an operating system kernel first released on 5 October 1991 by Linus Torvalds, and GNU (apart from its Hurd kernel), which had development started in 1983. The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux, which has led to some controversy.
• A term sometimes used to group the operating systems that use Linux as their kernel.

(OK, that's not what the Hacker pages look like, but I think much better than Linux is as of now. Actually, maybe we need a Linux (term) article)--Davidnotcoulthard(talk:Davidnotcoulthard) 16:00 UTC Jan 25th 2015

IMHO, that bulleted list would be simply too complicated, somewhat confusing, and unnecessarily against WP:PROSE. Current lead section should be clear to anyone who actually wants to understand it. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It might be more complicated, and even a bit confusing, but it's more correct, and I feel that's what encyclopedias should strive for first and foremost. The page as it is might be clear, but it's not entirely right (see my post just below). Also is the Hacker page too complicated? Should the bullet points there be removed? I, personally, don't think so. And I don't think the list I suggested would be unneccesarrily against the Prose thing since as I've stated it'd be more correct.(talk:Davidnotcoulthard)16:28 UTC Jan 25th 2015

Hacker (term) article is clearly marked with {{Cleanup-reorganize|article|date=April 2008}}, what indicates that it is "in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines". Thus, comparing that article with other well-written articles makes little sense. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Dsimic. This would not be an improvement. I support the current consensus for our current lede. Msnicki (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I edited the defining components of "Linux the OS" to Linux and GNU and someone changes it back to Linux. I'm sorry but if Linux is the only defining component of the thing then those arguments about how most people know Linux to mean the kernel plus GNU and that Android would thus not cause confusion and perhaps the one that "Linux and GNU is the only form of Linux as an OS" are blown out of the water, are they not? I'm sorry, but to see someone state here that it's OK to call the entire OS Linux based on how most people know it to mean Linux and GNU, only for the Wikipedia page not to include GNU as a defining component, is just ridiculous.(talk:Davidnotcoulthard) 16:00 UTC Jan 25th 2015

A discussion on the Linux distribution talk page

There's a somewhat lengthy discussion in Talk:Linux distribution § Information on GNU/Linux that would really need input from more editors. It's about an ongoing disagreement on how should a Linux distribution be described, required level of coverage by references, and the way article's lead section should reflect the article content. Any input there would be highly appreciated! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity/Misunderstanding about Nokia X

See Smart Devices

"the Nokia X is Microsoft's first product which uses the Linux kernel."

As far as I know, Nokia X was developed and marketed by Nokia when its acquisition by Microsoft was not yet closed. The sources cited there also don't say that Nokia X was Microsoft's move. This news article declares the acquisition date as 25th April 2014. Nokia X was launched on 24th February 2014. GunjanPB (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Good point, this edit removed the unnecessary information. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sidebar confusing

I'm OK with this article not being mainly about the kernel, but the sidebar is very confused about whether to be about the kernel or the "whole thing". I think the side bar should go, or be radically changed, at the very least loosing version numbers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientus (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 March 5 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Yeah, that makes sense as there's no "version" of Linux, and including Linux kernel versions just introduces confusion. Got the infobox (that's how it's called) modified, but there's no need for any other changes to it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why does "Lynix" redirect here?

Does it mean anything? If it's just a misspelling, isn't that something for the search engine to deal with? 81.159.93.150 (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess it does no harm to have this redirect and there's nowhere better for it to redirect to. Tayste (edits) 20:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Well, "Lynix" isn't described in the target article, and search engines return nothing usable for the term; thus, it just introduces confusion without serving any purpose. With all that in mind, I've tagged the redirect with {{db}}, proposing its deletion. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"I guess it does no harm to have this redirect"

Lynix should redirect to the Lynx disambiguation (animal, weapon, browser, etc.) if at all. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Both seem unlikely. But the typo (accidently inserting an "i") seems even less likely than a misspelling of a homophone. Google agrees, suggesting "linux" not "lynx" for a search for "lynix". Tayste (edits) 04:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose merging Criticism of Linux with Linux the Criticism article has been tagged for not meeting NPOV and both articles would be better served merged together. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose- The Linux article is already long and the merged article would be even longer. The first thing proposed would be a split. If Criticism of Linux has issues then it needs fixing, not merging. - Ahunt (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If the Article is too long the fork should happen along content lines not POV lines. If we need to make a "history of Linux" page and divert content there we can. but saying the division will happen along the lines of view point is a violation of Neutral Point of View. NPOV trumps Article length. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose- These are distinct topics. Linux should be about linux in its current form, with brief mentions of history and criticisms. Incidentally History of linux already exists, so content here should not duplicate its content. Tayste (edits) 20:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, generally, I agree with Ahunt. I add that "functional" splits are completely normal, common, and the Microsoft articles already used as an example of that in the past. Further, I'd go on to suggest, that were any merging to be done in this area, then Criticism of desktop Linux should be merged back in to Criticism of Linux. "Criticism of Linux" looks a bit bare, and unevenly weighted to a non-neutral critic (MS), but oh well, so it goes in the industry. I can "deal" with it. My feelings really aren't hurt. "Criticism of Linux" needs work, fleshing out, as it were.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that there is a distinction of topic, the distinction is we have allowed ourselves to make 2 articles for 2 different POVs instead of 1 article for 1 POV. Historical criticisms of course can be added in a NPOV to the History of Linux Page. but any criticism that is current should be merged here. if it is sourced and verified we can write it in the NPOV and merge it into the content of the boby. if it has a bad source or is unverifiable we can eliminate it. Neutral Point of view isn't "Neutral Praise one article" and "Neutral Criticism other article" That isn't what Wikipedia is about. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There are many criticism articles in Wikipedia. NPOV applies to how WP deals with the content in the sources, not the topic itself. I agree that Criticism of desktop Linux should be merged with Criticism of Linux. But neither should be merged with Linux (which should also be neutral, not a "praise" article). Tayste (edits) 22:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There are roughly 150 "criticism of..." Articles. 150/300,000,000+ shows that Criticism of articles are exceptions not norms. Can we agree it would be better to have a wikipedia with 3 million articles that all have a NPOV of positive, nuetral, and critical information. or would it be better to have a Wikipedia with 6 million articles where criticism is in a "contra-article" and non criticism is in the "article". That isn't what Wikipedia is about. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles on nematodes are also the exception not the norm, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any. Your view on "what Wikipedia is about" matters less than Wikipedia's own view, as documented in the five pillars, one of which is that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. "Linux" and "Criticisms of Linux" are two different topics, with different audiences of readers. Both should be (separate) articles, both written from a NPOV. Given that the topic for the latter is controversial/opinionated, that article should be written with additional care to maintain NPOV, e.g. by also citing sources that respond to criticisms. Merging it here doesn't solve that. Tayste (edits) 23:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that they are 2 different topics. Here's an example. Art criticism is not titled "Criticism of Art" because Art is the modifier and Criticism is the object being modified. "Criticism of Linux" and "Linux" the word "Linux" is the object in both. So they aren't two separate topics they are the same topic. So can a single topic have more than one article? of course. Some topics have dozens of articles. but what we don't allow is for that same topic to be treated twice by two seperate POV. we call that Content Forking and it's bad because it goes against NPOV.Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've said my piece, so I'll wait now for views from other editors. Good luck with your campaign to have all "Criticism of X" articles either removed or merged with their main articles. For what it's worth, I'll point out that Art criticism refers to the practice of voicing criticisms of individual works of art, not of the concept of Art itself. Tayste (edits) 23:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: a better example is to compare Islam and Criticism of Islam. Tayste (edits) 00:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, Criticizing art is a profession, a science, and an art in and of itself. that's why it's the Art Criticism. not Criticism of Art. When you look at the article criticism of art has "methodology" "history" things like that. not "This one painting sucks according to so and so" "So and so said this painting is ugly" that's not what art criticism is. If we felt that the criticism of Linux was such a flushed out concept that we called it Linux criticism. maybe we could make a great article out of it. but as is I just see it as an attempt to white wash the Linux article. Thanks for giving your input it really is helpful. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: As Ahunt already explained above, Linux article is already quite long so merging anything into it would be against WP:SIZESPLIT, for example. Also, if an article has some issues, merging it with another article isn't the way for fixing those issues. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

A question for Ahunt, if you could indulge a hypothetical. if you had to chose between violating NPOV and violating a guideline what would you chose.Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd choose neither, as it's quite easy to go by the guidelines. Also, WP:NPOV is just one of the guidelines/policies. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

So you're alright with us merging the 2 articles on the same topic to be 1 article on the 1 topic. good. I'm glad we have you onboard Dsimic Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure why are you trying to twist my words? I've clearly expressed that I do not support the merger proposal. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if we can find where we disagree. 1- do you agree its a bad idea to have 2 articles for the same exact topic? if so, what are the 2 topics in "Criticism of Linux" and "Linux" to me it looks like they have the same topic ( Linux ) but I want to understand your viewBryce Carmony (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There isn't much new to be discussed about the whole thing. My opinion is that having two separate articles is a good thing, as their topics aren't the same. Moreover, having two separate articles keeps much of the politics out of the main article, Linux, which is also already quite long so merging more stuff into it would be against WP:SIZESPLIT. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Having 2 articles for the same topic is a content fork. which is against guidelines and npov. should we have 2 articles for the holocaust? one that we don't allow any "criticism" in and one that we put all the criticism in? it makes no sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:SIZESPLIT, it allows such "two-article" layouts. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

that's what I'm proposing, we split the content, the difference is you want to split it by "criticism" and "not criticism" ( a pov split) and I want to split it by topic. like (history of linux, linux products, linux hardware, etc ) the content split is prefferable to a POV split since a pov split inevitably takes us away form NPOV. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope. What you've proposed is a merger. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached. We can get a 3rd party if we need to , but I am putting the merge tag on since the merge discussion is still going onBryce Carmony (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons outlined above and particular by user Aladdin Sane. See also WP:SUMMARYSTYLE: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own" and, of course, WP:SPINOFF and WP:SPLIT. Wikipedia supports splits like this where they make sense either because of article length or context, both of which apply here. (This is starting to look like a consensus). andy (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

See but you aren't making a subtopic... you are keeping the SAME topic. let me explain

• Linux = the topic of this article is Linux
• Criticism of Linux = the topic of this article is Linux ( modified by criticism as the POV [not NPOV])
• Linux Criticism = the topic of this article is Criticism ( modified by Linux as the type of crticism )

Imagine if we had articles "Praise of Linux" we couldn't allow for that. but we allow for criticism of? please. we can create 1 article for the topic of linux. we can make NEW topics ( like history of linux ) but you don't get to say "NPOV is too hard" and give up on it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Your logic is flawed. You say "Criticism of Linux = the topic of this article is Linux" but of course that's not true. The topic is criticism of Linux, which is why that's the title of the article. According to your logic all articles on subtopics should be merged into the same main article if their titles are of the form "subtopic of X". From this absurd premise you are constructing specious arguments. andy (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)