Talk:List of Linux distributions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Linux distributions article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of the Linux WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Linux, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
List	This page is a list and does not require a rating.

	This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.
Cleanup Taskforce page → Edit | Purge [edit] List of Linux distributions The article reads like an advertisement. Also, all distros need to be verified, especially the inactive and discontinued distros. Ceros 03:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Adding to User:SodiumChloride/Desk, User:Elric_of_Grans/Desk, and User:Shadowoflinux/Desk. Ceros 03:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 List of Linux distributions 2 Chinese distribution 3 This article reads like an advertisement? 4 Inactive or discontinued distributions 5 Live CDs? 6 Red Hat 7 Solved issues 7.1 Debian Hardened 8 Definition list 9 Merge and Cleanup 10 RPM-based versus Red Hat Enterprise Linux-based 11 Isn't SUSE Slackware based? 12 Changed Asterisk@home to trixbox 13 kubuntu ? 14 Commercial vs. Free 15 Fictional distros

[edit] Chinese distribution

Where is the Chinese backed distribution?

[edit] This article reads like an advertisement?

""This article reads like an advertisement. Please clean it up to conform to a Category:Wikipedia style guidelines of quality, and to make it neutral in tone.""

This tag has been added now. Sometimes, I sometimes feel like so, because the way of some parts of explanation is too long. This page should be only a list of distributions with simple description of each. I think long and extra exlpanations should go to individual pages of their distributions. User-green 11:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree definitions just too long, use of Okkams razor may help. Only key features have to be mentioned, not the lists of subdistributions. eg. Ubuntu. The problem is what feature is "key" enought : Free/Commertial, package system, intended user auditory. ect.Any_Key 00:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

While I am cleaning the article and merging it with Linux Distribution I will keep this in mind. netkid91 02:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inactive or discontinued distributions

Perhaps the entries could be in separate page "Histrorical Linux distributions (discontinued)" for those now ceased Jaalto 2005-11-24

Wikipedia is not a website for people to come and see a list of things to choose from and pick the one they think is best - it's an encyclopedia. This is a list of Linux distributions that are notable enough to be encyclopedic, not a list of distributions that are recommended. Inactive and discontinued stays. ¦ Reisio 16:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion that we should remove articles on inactive or discontinued distributions. This page is NOT a HOWTO for Linux beginners. This is an encyclopedia, so that historical mentionning should be much more important for readers. If you interested on current affairs on Linux distributions, you had better create your own pages outside Wikipedia and then link them here for readers' reference. User-green 08:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree they should remain on the list and articles should remain, but I also agree they should be put in a seperate section. I'll think about doing it durning cleanup netkid91 02:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the best thing to do would just be to put a note in their description? Something semi-standardized, so that it would be easy for a person who was looking over the list to pick out the discontinued ones? I think just writing (Discontinued) at the beginning of the description would suffice. Kadin2048 23:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live CDs?

Should live CDs have their own category? Their use is usually different from an installed distro. It would break the categorization by package format more, but live CDs are their own kind of specialist distro. Jman 18:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think so. The most imporatant decision is the packaging system, then the distribution name and last the live CD capability, which can be mentioned next to the distribution itself. Jaalto 2005-10-15.

• • Issue is, not all distro's include a LiveCD and Full install. I think the GP was talking about ditro's such as Knoppix. netkid91 03:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think Live cds should have their own categories so that someone looking for Live CDs can have easy access to the varieties available and simultaneosly go through the variety of other distros available to him.. Pratikarun 12:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. 64.180.234.102 07:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Hat

How come Red Hat is not here but Fedora is here? I would add some of th info, but I can't enter the tech info so I'm not spoiling other people's good work...

• It's just a list - most of the "tech info" here is propagandist bullshit that should be replaced by hard facts with Comparison of Linux distributions anyways. Therefore, just add it yourself. ¦ Reisio 09:44, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

• It's mentioned there. Look above commercial distributions. Jaalto 2005-11-24

[edit] Solved issues

[edit] Debian Hardened

It seems Debian Hardened is a project that brings security features to Debian GNU/Linux, and is not itself a distribution. I'm removing it from th list. Tell me if this is not correct. Sether 00:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definition list

This article is hand cranking definition lists, rather than just using the available definition lists. I edited the Special-purpose distributions section to how it should be... But do not have the time to do the rest. See Help:List#Definition lists for more info. wangi 12:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You can use something like this:

*cat inputfile | sed -e "s/'''//g" | sed -e 's/^*/;/g' > outfile 

Any_Key

[edit] Merge and Cleanup

It has already been stated at the top of the article that it needs some cleanup, and also in the foreword it says this article should be merged with Linux_distribution, so is anyone planning on taking care of this, otherwise I would be more than happy to take care of it. netkid91 01:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for taking this on. One suggestion: Take what's good in the section titled "Choosing a Linux distribution" on the Linux distribution article and move it to this article. --65.19.87.53 04:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was acutally planning on doing the merge the other way around, List of Linux Disto's -> Linux Distribution, I'll go ahead and do some cleanup while I'm at it. Sorry for taking so long to reply, been kind of busy, I'll make a page in my user sandbox and get started, expect to see a update soon netkid91 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Edit: See my current edits on My Temp Workspace - Edited 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am starting to wonder wether this page really should be merged with Linux Distribution or Comparison_of_Linux_distributions and just give it a makeover. I made a nice little template that I can add to Template:Distro_Item, so no big deal. netkid91 03:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that this article should be merged with the Linux distribution one, if anything I think that the "List of" article and the "Comparison of" article would be the logical choices for a merge -- it seems like it would be pretty easy to take the "comparison" content and add it to the list. But I don't think that people who want to read an article about the concept of a "distribution" really want to have a gigantic long list of every Linux distribution appended to the bottom of the article. The list, IMO, is definitely better kept separate. Maybe the "introduction" section (the area before the ToC) in the List article should get moved somewhere else, but I think it's misguided to put the list into some other article. Therefore I guess I'm against the merge as currently proposed, but I would strongly support moving the 'comparison' content into the list article. Kadin2048 23:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I like your idea Kadin, I will have to do so. I agree, this place needs to stay seperate from the other two, so basically we just need to copy some content over to this article, move the into paragraph, do some cleanup and redesign the page using my tempalte(visit it's talk page to suggest things to add to it). netkid91 22:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a merge. But I do think the introductory paragraphs are pointless because they belong in Comparison of Linux distributions if anything. This article should just be kept as an organized list with short descriptions of each distro. I'm going to be bold and change the introduction to something short but sweet. Sether 02:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC) I've just been bold in chopping the intro back, and I think it's improved. However the whole categorisation issue is fraught - several distros could go under multiple headings. Many of the descriptions *do* read like advts, but with some work they could be brought under control - I think its handy to have such a descriptive take on each as opposed to the technical approach of the Comparison_of_Linux_distributions.

I don't know enough about this to do it myself but the Xandros entry under partially commercial needs to be cleaned up. Specifically: "(based on the defunct Corel Linux)" and "Based on Debian." It can't be based on both. Which is it? --arthurbarnhouse 10:09 August the 29th, 2006

Most of the information is redundant with Comparison of Linux distributions. I think it should be merged.Mike92591 19:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be submitted to the Cleanup Taskforce. Does anyone else agree? Ceros 14:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the cleanup tag has been posted since November 2005, I'm going ahead and submitting this to the Cleanup Taskforce. Ceros 03:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RPM-based versus Red Hat Enterprise Linux-based

to be consistent (the Debian and Gentoo-based distributions are just that. They are not DPKG or Portage-base), I am splitting off RHEL-based as a separate category and move the relevant of the RPM-based distributions to RHEL-based, and linking to the RHEL clones article. Riaanvn 15:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't SUSE Slackware based?

It says in the SUSE article that it is, but here it isn't listed as such. Anyone? -smb

I'm pretty sure that it isn't and has never been.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE_Linux Says right there that it was a translation of Slackware

While it appears they originally used Slackware as their base, it is no longer similar to Slackware. "Based on" here means what the current distribution is based on; SuSE is much more similar to Red Hat and uses the RPM package manager. —Centrx→talk • 00:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changed Asterisk@home to trixbox

Asterisk@home changed their name to trixbox a few months ago. I edited it to say the new name. 24.45.161.236 21:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] kubuntu ?

i was going through the list of distros based on debian and kubuntu was not listed there.

• Is Kubuntu significantly different enough from Ubuntu that it warrants a separate entry? Personally, I don't think so. Oh. It is listed now under Ubuntu anyway. :) vLaDsINgEr 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial vs. Free

Vector Linux and MEPIS both offer fully-functional products free of charge on public mirrors to which they link on their respective websites, with some additional software available in paid versions. Novell and SUSE engage in an arguably similar practice but present the free and paid distributions as different products rather than versions, where paying customers are buying a higher expectation of software maturity and entering into a client-vendor relationship. Linspire and Linux XP stand out in offering no products free of charge. Use of the term "free" in the context of Linux is potentially very inflammatory, and the use of "partially commercial" is begging for questionable categorizations.

commercial: A money making endeavor that involves a corporation or other formalized group of workers and management working toward the production of goods or services to participate in an economy. [1]

So commercial is not the same as proprietary. Free is the opposite of proprietary. Commercial can be both and both can be non-commercial. -- mms 02:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional distros

I think this section should only have fictional distros that have actually been documented outside of Wikipedia, and not just any silly idea some nerd wants to add to Wikipedia. So, I propose we remove Clux, PaperOS, and Ferkel. I didn't mention DarkOPS Omega because I actually found a mention of someone looking for it on an Ubuntu forum. Although, this person did hear about it by reading this page, so maybe it should be removed too. Also CLUX should definitely be removed as Clux is a real thing. Computational Linux/Unix CLUster. Of course Jesux and Yellow Hat should remain as those are genuine Linux hoaxes. Dan0 00 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, since no one seems to disagree, I'll go ahead and do it. Dan0 00 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)