Talk:Comparison of Linux distributions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software. This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as High-importance). Linux B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Loongson#Linux|loongson]] Anchor Loongson#Linux links to a specific web page: Linux. The anchor (#Linux) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

My edit removing BLAG Linux and GNU was reverted by User:GermanJoe on the basis of "may still be of encyclopedic interest for some readers". The text explicitly states in the lead and in a comment that the list is only for active distributions. Is there consensus to include inactive distributions? If so, these need to be rewritten, otherwise the edit removing its listing should be restored. Greenman (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenman: I missed that part somehow. But if the lead requires "active" distributions, why is there a status column distinguishing between active and inactive entries? Is that a different distinction? But aside from my confusion, I don't see why inactive distributions should be neccessarily removed. The amount of notable distros seems manageable, and notable Wiki topics remain notable even if discontinued or inactive. A possible Plan B could be to separate these distributions into an "Inactive" section of their own (not exactly common, but some other software-related lists use this approach) - depending on editor consensus of course, whatever is seen as best solution. GermanJoe (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally support retaining notable, inactive distributions, as is the case with most software list articles, so let's just wait for further input to see if there's agreement before making further changes one way or another. Greenman (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the notable inactive distros in the table as we have it now -- as long as a distro is notable, it's notable. Maybe we could just scratch the active requirement as active but not-notable distros are not notable. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I have gone ahead and removed the "must be active" restriction (per current practise and above comments). But of course consensus can change in either direction, if other editors disagree in the future. GermanJoe (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I think that when "notability" in uncertain, Wikipedia lists should err on the side of including, rather than excluding, but this list is just way too long to be useful. There are certainly not 93 "notable" distros. Maybe (being generously inclusive) there are 40. Not 93.

Now on the topic of "inactive". Some distros have historical significance, and should be included in an encyclopedia even when no longer active. The distros in this list which started before the year 2000 are probably in that category (though actually all are still active!). But distros which came into being after 2000 and didn't last until now - no, those are not notable, and do not belong in Wikipedia. If you do not agree, please state reasonable notability criteria, otherwise those distros should be removed. Longitude2 (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since last year there is another Linux distribution: Oracle Enterprise Linux, based on Red Hat. Now they started with Oracle Enterprise Linux 4, and have released for few week already Oracle Enterprise Linux 5.

Should Photon OS be included here? It is "an open source, minimal Linux container" optimized for VMWare environments. --rogerd (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think per WP:LISTCRITERIA an entry in this list should meet some notability standard, although below that required for an article. So I think for instance we should not include distributions that were one-time student projects that were never maintained. But I guess if Photon OS is maintained and distributed (you can download it), and as you say "an open source, minimal Linux container", then it might belong on the list. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the distribution has a stand-alone article to show that it is notable, it should not be added. But of course anyone is welcome to write a short stub with a few independent sources. GermanJoe (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, the only mention of it in wikipedia that I can find is in the disambiguation page Photon (disambiguation). I will start working on a Photon OS article, with the goal of having enough information in it to add to this list. There is a lot of information out there, since it is maintained by VMware, Inc.. --rogerd (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed Dutch words on the page mixed with English words. Looking at the source I saw tags like: { {Free|Gratis} } (spaces are not included in the source, but I could not get it as "plain" text)

Although my settings are all English, I still get the Dutch words, which is annoying.

My question is, is this intended on this page? And if so, are multilingual sentences an unintended consequence of this design choice? For example: Some editions are gratis

Petzep (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gratis is used in English when discussing software, because there is a distinction between different types of "free" software; "gratis" means free as no monetary cost, "libre" means free as in without restrictions or with limited restrictions. This is the same distinction as between freeware (gratis) and free software (libre). See also Gratis versus libre, wikt:gratis#English, wikt:libre#English. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced all references of "gratis" with "free" "none" because the column header explicitly says "cost". There is no need to disambiguate libre vs gratis within that table, plus gratis is an awkward word to use. Northern Moonlight 04:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link for Guix System leads to the GNU Guix (Package Manager for GNU Guix System) article, not Guix System or GNU Guix System. 99.7.207.171 (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]