Talk:Linux

GNU logo in the introduction of this article

@Aoidh and Betseg:

[...] the Linux article should have the Linux logo, not the logos of related projects used with Linux

The introduction states it's about the OS family, not the Linux kernel.

Most of the OS family consists of Linux plus GNU, Busybox or Google technologies.

Only GNU has very strong historical ties with Linux; Busybox is a minor use and Google's Android and the small amount of derivatives are not as relevant, it is indeed popular but only has a few amount of usages - mobile devices and TVs - unlike GNU.

I will replace the GNU logo after the infobox awaiting responses. Innomé (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It is about the OS family, and that OS family uses the Linux mascot as the mascot. This article is about Linux, not GNU, thus the infobox's image is of the Linux logo. That Linux (often) uses some GNU libraries does not warrant putting the GNU logo in the infobox any more than Cult of the Lamb should have the Unity (game engine) logo appended to its infobox. - Aoidh (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not replace it in the infobox.

Popular term usage made the family 'be Linux' and not GNU/Linux - or Linux plus Android or whatever.

The 'Linux' in discussion is, a lot of times especially historically, a 'GNU/Linux', GNU deserves to be shown in the introduction just like the term 'GNU/Linux' is mentioned there. Innomé (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if the GNU logo should appear at all in the article but if it should, it the summary text should be tweaked (maybe to just The GNU project provides the most common userspace for Linux distributions. and move it to be floated right in the "Design" section immediately at/above the paragraph beginning with The GNU userland is a key part of most systems? I think that probably serves the reader better. (This is just a first suggestion for possible improvements.) Skynxnex (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion, thanks. I agree such an addition could be useful.

Furthermore I do believe there should be something to cancel the invisibilization of GNU OS, software or project within the introduction as well, not necessarily another image people won't even see after the enormous infobox, but balancing the brief mention that looks to me as 'Oh well, there's some minor controversy no one should care about, please continue reading'...

Waiting for @Aoidh:'s opinion. Innomé (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not replace it in the infobox. Yes, you did. I see that you then shifted it to below, but at the time I was writing that, I was referring to that edit. This edit is not an improvement either, because images should be placed in the article to increase a reader's understanding of the article's subject. Adding the GNU logo to the Linux article does not do that, and places an undue emphasis on the importance of GNU within the concept of Linux as a whole; what's in the article currently already places an appropriate amount of emphasis on that aspect of this article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you did. [...]

I did before you mentioned it again, it's bizarre and ridicule to mention it again when we're progressing for a consensus, please refrain from doing this.

undue emphasis on the importance of GNU within the concept of Linux as a whole

That is your opinion. GNU and Linux are contemporary, other potential important technologies are much more distant from Linux's initial gain of popularity.

already places an appropriate amount of emphasis on that aspect of this article's subject

Your opinion again. Innomé (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

If you state something that is demonstrably false (I did not replace it in the infobox.), it is neither bizarre nor ridicule to point out that you did in fact do exactly that. I will not refrain from pointing out when a response to my comment is based on an inaccuracy. My comment was on why that edit has issues, especially when that was the last edit made that I saw when I started writing my response. That GNU/Linux is a minority POV term as defined by Wikipedia policy (such as WP:DUE) is not my opinion. - Aoidh (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

state something false

I said so because of context confusion, both of us are responsible for it.

I said it was bizarre/ridicule because of the lack of context we faced. You can point out anything if context is clear enough.

WP:DUE, uses the example of flat Earth

the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

The logic behind GNU/Linux is legitimate and isn't extreme at all - it being backed by the GNU project and the FSF is the only argument for people to say it's an opinion. Innomé (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the veracity of comments you make. WP:DUE is more than just that example, and the text of that policy applies here. Those advocating for GNU/Linux as the name is not so minor a viewpoint that it warrants no mention on Linux at all, like the flat earth example you gave, which is why it is mentioned at the article and in the lede itself as well, but further emphasis on this minority viewpoint would be giving it undue emphasis. - Aoidh (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

We're again talking about the term, but it's not the subject of my initial contribution to this article.

Reliable sources and people (not a minority) affirm that GNU's importance is not just a side note in the context of the OS family in question. Innomé (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That is a conflation of two separate things. The history of GNU in relation to Linux is a separate issue to the name GNU/Linux. Indeed over half of the History section discusses GNU's role in the history of Linux. - Aoidh (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not half, that's a forth of the history section.

it's reductive to simply consider the inclusion of GNU's impact in the History section. Innomé (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Whether that would be reductive or not is a moot point, because mention of GNU is not limited to the history section by any means. More sections make various mentions of GNU or GNU projects/licenses than those that do not. Counting the lede as a section and discounting the non-content sections (See Also, Notes, References, External Links), 7 of the 9 sections in the article make some mention of GNU in some way, most of them significant mentions. Only Hardware support and Market share and uptake make no mention of GNU, and it would make sense for those sections to not do so. This article does not downplay GNU and its impact on Linux, as a simple read through the article will show. However, that does not mean that GNU needs to be over-emphasized and a GNU logo would at best be purely decorative for this article, because how would seeing the GNU logo increase a reader's understanding of Linux? This article discusses but is not about GNU, so adding GNU's logo is not warranted and would be about as relevant as adding a Unix logo. - Aoidh (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

We were talking about the History section, of course I read and am aware of the whole article.

a GNU logo would at best be purely decorative for this article, because how would seeing the GNU logo increase a reader's understanding of Linux? This article discusses but is not about GNU, so adding GNU's logo is not warranted and would be about as relevant as adding a Unix logo

I doubt you grasped completly what UNIX is for [GNU/]Linux, it's only the proprietary counterpart that got replaced.

GNU is the component that made Linux viable for a long time before other systems came.

I'll finish simply saying I support @Skynxnex: and find it a good enough compromise due to the existence of the Wikipedia discriminatory (i.e. that makes a decision) guidelines and the amount of wikipedians and people who would voice no support to maintain the statu quo. Innomé (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

My comment was that would be about the most I'd possibly support. I'm not sold on even my proposed text. I think waiting for more input/ideas from other editors might help clarify the general sense of editors since there's no rush and we already mention GNU a fair bit in that section. Skynxnex (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I doubt you grasped completly what UNIX is for Your doubts are fortunately not borne out in this instance, and like History section and the example at WP:DUE, Unix was an example to show that the logo for GNU is not needed to aid in the understanding of what Linux is any more than adding the Unix logo would be. This section header suggests the issue is the lack of the GNU logo but your responses have nothing to do with that. It would perhaps be beneficial to state unambiguously what the issue that you see is, and what solution do you propose? Is this still about the GNU logo? - Aoidh (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I was telling you to review his suggestion; part is about the introduction, and another part is about putting a GNU logo and caption in the Design section. Innomé (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

No explanation has been given as to why the logo would belong on this article, and how adding that image would aid in the understanding of what Linux is. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature, an image needs to illustrate something relevant to the article itself, and while GNU is mentioned in the article, so is BusyBox and Unix, but those logos don't belong on this article either, because showing those logos does not aid in the understanding of this article. The GNU logo belongs at GNU, not this article, it serves no benefit in being added but to add clutter to the page. - Aoidh (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Images are useful to emphasize the most important subjects, since we agreed the three userlands (Google's, Busybox, and GNU) are important I would suggest adding images in adequate sections - as such disreguard from now on the 'GNU in the introduction' part since we moved on - tell me your opinion. Innomé (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Images are useful to emphasize the most important subjects not really, they're useful if they provide context or additional information that text alone cannot. How does adding a GNU logo help the reader understand the role GNU played in the history of Linux? It doesn't. Adding the logos of other products does not help the reader and only serves to clutter or confuse at best. Android (operating system) doesn't have the Linux or Apple/iOS logos though there is a similarly situated relationship there, and for good reason. What you're describing is adding decorative detail for emphasis rather than comprehension, and that's not the purpose of images on Wikipedia articles. That logo does not have a purpose on this article. - Aoidh (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You didn't take into account - or focused again on GNU - my suggestion of not one logo, but multiple according to how much importance user-spaces are given.

Emphasis is not decoration or confusion at all - you're clearly wrong, repetition of key information is important for memorization, this has been proven by reliable sources, and now almost pertains to common sense these days.

User-spaces are much more important to mention, emphasize and explain than what you mentioned as an example, emphasize the history starting point with UNIX's logo. Innomé (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, I not only took that into account but have commented on it several times (e.g. those logos don't belong on this article either). A logo for a related product/project does not add to the understanding of this article's subject, since those logos are not of nor about Linux. It's not repetition to introduce a logo since it's not a repeat of any previous information, and while repetition may or may not have benefits, what you're suggesting is not repitition but emphasis, which again is not something images are used for on Wikipedia. The question to ask when deciding whether to include an image in an article is "does this serve as an illustrative aid or enhance the understanding of the article's subject?" and the answer for these third-party logos is "absolutely not". - Aoidh (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The repeated info would be the caption, the image would at the very minimum attract attention.

The section 'Copyright, trademark, and naming' could have another image, probably related to GNU for the naming controversy - like the one in GNU/Linux naming controversy#GNU/Linux.

The section 'Market share and uptake' could have logos of the different user-spaces.

The section 'Community' could have dual images with the FSF and OSI logos. Innomé (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of images on Wikipedia articles. - Aoidh (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I should be grateful for this reminder; the English Wikipedia is set in stone with its ancient consensus on what should and shouldn't be.

Difficult to contribute on the Wikipedia of the statu quo. Innomé (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

"Busybox is a minor use and Google's Android [...] are not as relevant, [...] only has a few amount of usages" and "The GNU project provides the most common userspace for Linux distributions", are you both saying "more common" means "more projects use it" and not "installed on more devices"? Betseg (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, more distributions use GNU.

Perhaps around ten projects are using Android? Much less in any case. Innomé (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

More distributions may or may not use GNU, but that's not a metric that gives a good picture of actual usage. More people use Android than those distributions by several orders of magnitude. As of August 2023 over 70% of all smartphones in the world use Android. It is the most common operating system in the world by usage, surpassing even desktop operating systems such as Windows. Even if you combined the usage of every desktop distro, you'd get approximately 32.8 million compared to Android's 3 billion. That's well over 900 times as much as every desktop distro combined, so while there may or may not be more distros using GNU, those distros are not being used anywhere near as frequently as the non-GNU usages of Linux. There was a point in time where Linux was very much dependent on the GNU userland and to use Linux was to use those components, but that is no longer the case, and statistically most usages of Linux use BusyBox. - Aoidh (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware for Busybox, but it's probable, true.

Android's role is in the amount of user while GNU is in the amount of distro ans history. Both should be and are mentioned. Innomé (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

List of removed architectures

Linux has many removed architectures now, unfortunately there isn't a list anywhere as far as I know. I think this article should add a list of the removed architectures. If so should it be added to the Infobox or elsewhere.

The architectures are:

nds32, h8300, c6x, unicore32, CRIS, tile, blackfin, score, m32r, frv, mn10300, metag, AVR32 and v850

You can list the removed architectures by running this command in the Linux source tree.

git log --diff-filter=A --oneline --name-only -- arch/ | grep -E "^arch/[^/]?+/Makefile$" | xargs git log --oneline --diff-filter=D --name-only -- Mr-Bossman075 (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't Linux the #1 kernel much earlier?

I'm pretty sure Linux became the #1 kernel years earlier. The first article section says 2022, but I think it happened earlier (2010s) as used to be written elsewhere on Wikipedia such as maybe a computer (science) history timeline. Android became popular in the '0s to 2010s, and the only major competitor was Apple/iOS which its kernel never was as widespread. Can anyone dig up records when Linux actually became the #1 kernel?--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 07:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

"Components and freedom of choice of a Linux system" diagram

The diagram, added in this edit, has a number of issues, including:

• it's sufficiently complicated that it's unreadable, except by those with extraordinary vision, without being significantly enlarged;
• it's divided into "layers", the relationship between which is not obvious;
• the "Essential Layer" appears to be divided into sublayers by color, and some of those sublayers have sub-sub-layers, but they aren't "layers" in the sense of API layers or dependency layers (the "Various layers within Linux" has this issue to a lesser degree) - the underlying issue is that dependencies between OS components form a graph more complicated than a path graph, so any layering is inaccurate if it's meant to indicate dependency;
• it's not clear what the distinction is between stuff in the uppermost yellow sublayer of the "Essential Layer" and stuff in the green layer two layers above that ("tail -f"? Yes, that can be a useful tool when watching logs, but you're usually running it from a shell, so "tail -f" depends on a command-line shell, which is two layers up);
• the "tty" layer might be "essential" for command-line users, but not all Linux users are command-line users, especially if they're using an embedded Linux system;
• the layer containing GUI login managers is below the display server layer, but most if not all GUI managers depend on the display server layer;
• the display server layer says "X-server", but it sits above two items, one of which (if the "W" stands for "Wayland") is not an X server;
• window managers don't necessarily fit into the system the way the "Window-Manager" layer indicates - a window manager might be a component of a desktop environment, and a compositing window manager performs some if not all of the functions of a display server.

I think the problems with it are that:

• it tries to do too much, making it complicated enough that it's hard to understand, and much of what it does is probably not necessary;
• much of it is based on original research, and some of that research is incorrect;
• as a result of trying to do too much, it's too big that it's not very readable unless it's significantly enlarged.

I think the "Various layers within Linux" suffices, so I'm going to revert the addition of that diagram, and suggest that it be discussed here before being re-added. Guy Harris (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Guy Harris,

thanks for your opinion and information.

I´m the creator of this linux graphic. Let me explain why it looks like like it did.

- The goal of this graphic is to make a visual understanding what a linux distribution is.

Which components working with each other to make this great stuff happen.

For this i made the decision to use the common community logos of this components which also used in software magazines, Linux books for beginners and advanced, Wikipedia itself and of course the community repositories. The graphic match knowledge of linux distributions in a very compressed form.

As a example the normal linux books explain this layers on 2000 pages.

- The graphic is usable in the Linux wikipedia page for the chapters History, Design (It matched great with the table in this chapter), User Interface and Development chapter at once.

So by a bunch of text what the wikipedia page is you can use the graphic at any point there is something unclear in understanding or which component has which task to do for and where it his place in the linux distribution.

if you want to know about linux or more people which search for linux meaning to want to know more about linux distributions. It is what they search for.

The bunch of text make it not clear by the hole number of special words how they matched together eg. bootloader. The graphic did that.

We should more focused of what the graphic did for readers than what it did maybe wrong.

If you have a look on the linux kernel page and the graphic there.

It also have too mutch information and is not good readable without max out in a separate browser window.

- It is separated in layers because you also explain the linux distribution in sub-parts of there components as you can read in the Design section of this page. The colors only said that these are separate layers. More similar colors mean they can work together eg kernel and init with the c-Libraries).

A linux kernel can not use software user-friendly without a TTY and the bash as common shell.

Deamons cannot work without a common init system.

A minimal desktop environments need a display-Server and a window Manager as Client ( Wayland is possible to do both as server and window-manager client), but if you read on Wayland wiki page they said that Gnome and KDE do it by itself with a specialized version of Mutter and Kwin.

So my graphic is not wrong at all. I think in the future it is more common that wayland use the upgraded window managers also as client that other.

- The layers are separated in Essential Layer and Optional Layer because this is exactly what a linux distribution is.

A modular stack of software components match together to do great stuff.

It present the common linux distribution but said also that a desktop environment isn´t necessary to use.

- The linux kernel layer has gnu commands in it to make it clear what a kernel did, what the user did with the kernel.

And that gnu utilities necessary to work with the kernel. ( I know it change a little bit with systemd tools).

If you like do things like a normal user which want to know more about linux distributions. They start with the hardware components and the BIOS because they know or heard about that.

They know the common components you use to control your PC are CPU, GPU and the Sound.

Because that is what you first let configure on a system. And by the way this the common logos you know directly.

So the kernel made process scheduling in fact it use EEVDF to control the CPU for the deamons and so for the running programs.

And the init system is the translater layer between the Kernel and the deamons. The first deamon process.

The kernel also has the modules for sound and graphic that your monitor can present anything to control the system ( DRM / KMS ) and Sound ( ALSA ) etc.

- At least as i mentioned above. If you do things like a normal reader your understanding is that linux is also kind of IOS, Android. Maybe you heard also about OpenBSD.

The graphic make it clear that it is not possible wrong at all. But this are two other shoes.

IOS, MACos is a unixe like system distribution created from BSD and from the first software of apples researchers and later a bunch of parts of NetBSD.

Android is a mobile distribution with a lot of other created programing layers.

What it´s similarity with linux is the linux kernel. This is the reason it is presented on the graphic on top right of the linux distributions but separated from the rest.

The graphic said nothing other in visual form than the complete linux page said by it self in chapters in text form.

I would be very happy if this graphic get a chance to help people to understand the linux distributions in a visual view, because that is exactly what i searched for as i have began with linux.

And why i made the decision to create this graphic by myself.

Best Regards

Larry Larrys-World-is-42 (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The goal of this graphic is to make a visual understanding what a linux distribution is. To know what a Linux distribution is, see Linux distribution. The graphic just shows a bunch of words and phrases, a few pictures, and some arrows that don't clearly indicate anything.

The bunch of text make it not clear by the hole number of special words how they matched together eg. bootloader. The graphic did that. What it does is show a grey box with a bunch of names in it and with "Bootloaders (Bootstrap Loaders)" does; I see nothing that indicates what a "Bootloader" does. If you want to know what a bootloader does, see bootloader, although perhaps it should briefly mention the two stages of boot loading in the lead. Or, if you're wondering about how Linux boots, see booting process of Linux.

We should more focused of what the graphic did for readers than what it did maybe wrong. First demonstrate, based on what readers say they learned from it, what it did for them. (And if they learned something that's not valid, that doesn't count as doing something good for them.)}}

So by a bunch of text what the wikipedia page is you can use the graphic at any point there is something unclear in understanding or which component has which task to do for The diagram is words and pictures; to what extent, if any, does that graphic make anything clearer?

It is separated in layers because you also explain the linux distribution in sub-parts of there components as you can read in the Design section of this page. In what sense are they "layers"? It's not as if the kernel is at one layer and the daemons are at another layer, as there are places (e.g., FUSE-based file systems) where the kernel sends messages to a user-mode daemon to perform actions, rather than user-mode code making system calls to the kernel. (And, yes, those daemons do make system calls; they must avoid making system calls that would cause, for example, a call back to them that the daemon could service only by making another system call that makes a callback, but, other than that....) The C library also may send messages to a daemon, e.g. sending a message to a DNS resolver running on the same machine.

Perhaps just listing components, without implying any "this component is at a layer below this" relationship, is the better way to do that.

A linux kernel can not use software user-friendly without a TTY and the bash as common shell. Many appliances that use Linux as platform on which their embedded software runs provide a user interface without a TTY. A TiVo box, for example, uses a Linux kernel, but you don't log into it and type at a shell (which, BTW, need not be bash) to set it up to record TV shows. Furthermore, shells are not only run interactively in a terminal session; they might also be run as a result of executing a shell script.

A minimal desktop environments need a display-Server and a window Manager as Client ( Wayland is possible to do both as server and window-manager client), but if you read on Wayland wiki page they said that Gnome and KDE do it by itself with a specialized version of Mutter and Kwin. Wayland is, as the page's name indicates, a protocol. The server that responds to requests from clients, using that protocol, is, as the page says, a display server that performs the functions of a compositing window manager, i.e., the same program acts as a display server and a window manager. That's the case with the Weston reference compositor, as well as with Mutter (which, BTW, appears, at least on Ubuntu 22.04, to be a shared library, not a program) and KWin.

I think in the future it is more common that wayland use the upgraded window managers also as client that other. In the present, and probably in the future, it's commonly (and the article seems to indicate that it's always) the case that the Wayland display server is the window manager.

The linux kernel layer has gnu commands in it to make it clear what a kernel did, what the user did with the kernel. In what way does it do that? If the "Linux-Kernel" yellow box is the "linux kernel layer", and the "GNU-Core Utilities" is the GNU coreutils, then the GNU coreutils, from the list of "The programs that can be built with this package" on that page, appear to be a collection of various commands, most if not all of which have no special relationship with the kernel - they just run atop the C library API. Other items listed in that yellow box are a mixture of kernel subsystems that may include their own tools to manage them (such as SELinux), a tool to show a tree view of processes (pstree), etc., with no obvious indication of what those items all have in common.

So the kernel made process scheduling Yes, that's one thing that OS kernels do. in fact it use EEVDF to control the CPU for the deamons and so for the running programs The daemons are running programs, so that's redundant. The Linux kernel has had a number of different scheduling algorithms over time; EEVDF is the current one.

If you do things like a normal reader your understanding is that linux is also kind of IOS, Android. Maybe you heard also about OpenBSD. There are many operating systems out there - more than just iOS, Android, and OpenBSD. (My collection of virtual machines, used as development tools to allow me to test libpcap, tcpdump, and Wireshark/TShark on more than just macOS when necessary, include various versions of {Windows, various Linux distributions such as Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/SuSE, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonFly BSD, Solaris, and Haiku}.)

So what are people trying to find out here?

If they want to know what a "Linux distribution" is, the page Linux distribution is a good place to look; it sums it up. It might be useful for it to discuss why Linux distributions exist, i.e. that, unlike most UN\*Xes, there's no single project that maintains the "core operating system". Instead, a "core operating system", i.e. a distribution, is assembled from pieces of various other (mostly) free-software projects. (Other OSes also do have some components that come from those free-software projects, but not all the components come from those projects.)

If they want to know what the architecture of a complete Linux system is, Linux § Design is a good start, although it still needs some work. Much of what it describes really may belong in other pages; for example, projects under freedesktop.org are not necessarily used by all Linux distributions and may be used by non-Linux OSes. The GUI layer should probably be described in pages that discuss the free-software desktop in general, as, again, they're not used by all Linux distributions and may be used by non-Linux OSes, at least when configured as desktop OSes. The "Other libraries" are mostly GUI toolkits, and belong with the GUI stuff; again, they are not used by all Linux distributions and are used by non-Linux OSes. The "User applications" is mostly GUI stuff; it mentions bash, but not the commands that are run from bash. (And the shell isn't only a user interface program; the "System V" init system, whether it's the original one in UNIX System V or the Linux clone thereof, is based on a lot of shell scripts, as is the BSD init system, for example.) Guy Harris (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"To know what a Linux distribution is, see Linux distribution. The graphic just shows a bunch of words and phrases, a few pictures, and some arrows that don't clearly indicate anything."

The page Linux distribution missed the table and the counting list from the chapter Linux § Design what the graphic better match with. It´s possible to move the graphic to that place if it is better there.

I think you have a too technical detailed view of this website, the topic and the graphic. This graphic is more than a bunch of words and phrases, a few pictures, and some arrows that don't clearly indicate anything. Your answer looks like you haven´t tried to understand this graphic or it possibility to use. Show at it like a normal user want to know about linux and linux distributions following this chapters for this website.

At the moment this chapter Linux § Design give us a detailed overview of linux distributions based on the kernel and user space table and a counting list of linux components (linux distribution components). If you don´t understand how this matched together you hover over the word links on this website and see the project logos. You could follow this links and read the other hundred linked websites in detail to understand the hole thing if interested in. Or and that´s the point you see the logo first , see the linux graphic and know OK this is on this level with this tasks of a linux system. Is this the right component you want to know more or do you search for another component deeper as this. Want quickly know how linux distributions are build.

Eg. Search for window-managers, heard from GNOME -> wiki landing page Linux -> search for GNOME on the page -> Is on Chapter user mode -> Linux § Design table -> looks like is on user mode Layer window-manager ? ->hover over the Gnome word -> Gnome Logo appears -> Looks at the graphic "Components and freedom of choice of a Linux system" -> Oh well this logo looks the same. Ah its the desktop environment not the window-manager well go on.

This is the goal this graphic will do for you as a linux newbie, linux interested person (teacher, pupil, student etc.). Fast and easy overview as a wiki should also do for you.

Your other comments are also too technical annotations to answer all of it again in my words. Yes Wayland is exactly speaken a protocol. But if you read this on the wiki page Linux § Design and the table and hover over the word wayland and see the logo it is this you visual link with it. Not that it is a protocol. With the table you see also it´s a window manager whats possible wrong because Wayland is a protocol , X-Window is a Server ( easy view) for display in- and output, using window manager (Client) eg. xwm etc. Most don´t care about at this point. They heard about wayland and x-server. It is necessary in the future for desktop environments to handle as window-server and window manager. If the users are interested to know more about they went to the wayland wiki page.

The graphic shows the most common components of linux distributions based on a low (technical) level, readable and to see on computer-magazines, computer-books, youtube videos etc.

It would be great if you or all the other users at wikipedia could tell what in the graphic had to change to be valid for you. At the moment i heard only it is not ok for a technical person and the graphic is nothing at all based on logos and bunch of words and phrases .

Or if this a special opinion of yourself and the other users are compliant with this graphic.

We should focuse of normal wiki reading users not scientists.

Have a nice day

Best Regards

Larry Larrys-World-is-42 (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)