Talk:List of Linux distributions

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Linux distributions article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 4 months

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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 Mid-importance).

Linux High‑importance

	Linux portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Katy Waldman (11 October 2013). "Wikipedia Editing Party at Brown University! Woohoo!". Slate (magazine). Archived from the original on 13 October 2013. Retrieved 13 October 2013. Topic bias means that issues of concern to geek dudes (such as Linux distributions) are rated as important, while issues women might find compelling (the design of Kate Middleton's wedding dress, say) are deemed trivial and flagged for deletion.

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 (--------) 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

(REDHAT is pay only, non-GNU, I would dare to say they are no longer a Linux Distro as a (wiki) dictionary defines it.)

Discontinued, now for sale

monomaxos.com was formerly a porn site, now for sale. This Ubuntu flavour is discontinued. Please remove link. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.62.243 (talk • contribs) 22 feb 2020 02:00 (UTC)

is linux monolithic ?

linux is not monolithic it's modular it was one of the first popular modular kernels; which can be micro if the user desires. mach uses different file structs to talk to its parts and is written by different people - is it definitely different but not by much if talking about modularity alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.23 (talk • contribs) 4 apr 2016 14:43 (UTC)

Updating the Distro Timeline

The timeline is old and should be updated. However, I have updated the image on the French Wikipedia which has its own file, and now the English Wikipedia doesn't let me update the file to the same file. So, what do we do?

Missing embedded distros

buildroot (can be compiled from scratch for many platform, including old and new PCs
yocto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.208.6 (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the French image ? I started a discussion here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg#Merging_with_File:Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg
Delete the French image and use this image on the French Wikipedia ?

Any help on doing one of the two things here is appreciated, as I am pretty much a newbie to image management on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. HGStyleOfficiel (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fedora missing from distro tables?

It seems that while Fedora is referenced in a few places in the paragraphs preceding tables or in descriptions within the tables, there is no entry for the Fedora distribution itself!

The current name seems to be "Fedora Linux".

That Fedora Linux is a distro, and should be listed, seems clear. The question is in which table should Fedora Linux be listed?

The next question is: Should the desktop and server distros, or the "spins" get their own entries? DrKN1 (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First distro to ship with X

Hi all, I currently read stuff on early history of Linux and noticed that some cite SLS, some TAMU Linux as the first to ship with X (see my recent edit). One good place to find the answer might be www.linux.co.cr, more specifically https://www.linux.co.cr/distributions/, and perhaps even better, https://www.linux.co.cr/free-unix-os/index.html. An even better place would be Usenet archives from May 1992. I probably won't do much more digging in this regard, so anyone who feels like finding the definite answer, these are a couple of good starting points.

BR to all, 188.66.33.218 (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the edit, since TAMU doesn't currently have an article, which is a criterion for being listed in this article. Given its history though, it may warrant one. I've also changed the wording of the SLS entry to more closely match what the redhat source says. TAMU shipped with X but didn't (initially) use it as a full GUI, so I don't think there's a contradiction with the updated wording. - Aoidh (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TAMU shipped with X but didn't (initially) use it as a full GUI,

Hmm... Is that from your own experience using it, or from some source? Any links?

Another thing I'd like to clarify is

TAMU doesn't currently have an article, which is a criterion for being listed in this article.

Can you please point me to it, as I just don't see it, and when considering TAMU for inclusion I had in mind WP:V and WP:RS (as usual), which the refs used don't seem to be in conflict with. 188.66.33.218 (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it further, it looks like there's no agreement on any definition of which was first, with more sources acknowledging the uncertainty. I've changed it accordingly. For the inclusion criteria, notability is the inclusion crtieria for this stand-alone list (WP:LISTCRIT). There's hidden text at the top of the article in the edit mode that notes the criteria the subject matter here should be backed by substantial, reliable third party sources. If your distribution has such coverage, write an article referencing it, and then link the distro here. While there is a Spanish Wikipedia article (es:TAMU Linux), there's not really third-party significant coverage in the references there that would show notability (WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT) to warrant an article on the English Wikipedia, and an online search isn't showing much either. - Aoidh (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't quite follow you: in the first post you said

TAMU doesn't currently have an article, which is a criterion for being listed in this article. Given its history though, it may warrant one.

but now you write:

While there is a Spanish Wikipedia article (es:TAMU Linux), there's not really third-party significant coverage in the references there that would show notability (WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT) to warrant an article on the English Wikipedia, and an online search isn't showing much either.

– so what exactly are you trying to say? Please clarify how your contradicting statements are supposed to be interpreted correctly. Aside from the fact that you didn't express this concern before, where are *objective* criteria according to which it's not notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia or have an article? As far as my understanding of notability is concerned, there's good evidence to the contrary: not only it's covered in multiple articles on early distros originating from different countries, but it kept getting new releases until at least September 1993 with plans for next release, grew in size to 14/35 disks (bin/src), which is extremely unlikely if there were very few people using it – see https://www.linux.co.cr/distributions/review/1993/0916.html

So can you point out principal difference(s) between distros like MCC Interim and SLS (having articles and listed here) on one hand and TAMU Linux on the other which make(s) the former notable enough for Wikipedia and the latter not?

Besides, I wonder whether you noticed it or not, but TAMU Linux is already mentioned in at least one article MCC Interim Linux and obviously far less significant HJ Lu's is included in another list of early distros without having its own article and where TAMU is missing Linux distribution having only a redirect HJ Lu, and while I'm not very familiar with WP's numerous guidelines, elementary logic suggests to me that either TAMU should be removed for lack of notability from that article as well (along with HJ Lu's, which I'm not inclined to consider a distribution at all, as boot/root images were offered by Linus since very early days of Linux development and are not regarded generally as a Linux distribution), or not removed from *any* article on the grounds of notability, as WP guidelines are supposed to be applied universally and not selectively favoring personal opinion of a particular editor.

So if my reasoning above is correct and in line with WP guidelines, are you in favor of removing TAMU Linux from WP articles where they are mentioned or in favor of keeping them (same question regarding far less significant HJ Lu's disks)?

In my opinion, it makes more sense to have TAMU Linux listed here and in other lists (like one above where it's missing, but HJ Lu's is included), rather than remove it from the article(s) it's are already in. And I'm not in favor of listing HJ Lu's here and keeping it in other distro lists it's already in, as I don't think that what was essentially put together by Linus (and is not considered a distribution, to begin with) deserves to be called a distribution bearing someone else's name, that's all.

And I would also like to remind you to provide some evidence to your claim

TAMU shipped with X but didn't (initially) use it as a full GUI

as that's clearly important enough as to whether TAMU Linux and SLS can be considered equally significant distros with regard to X or not. 188.66.32.248 (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TAMU Linux has an article on Spanish Wikipedia, which is a different project with different standards than the English Wikipedia. In order for TAMU Linux to have an entry on this list on the English Wikipedia, it must have an English Wikipedia article. List articles have different criteria than the prose in other types of articles, so it not warranting inclusion here has no bearing on its inclusion in other articles. An announcement from the devs is not a third-party source, and does not contribute towards the notability of the subject. If you believe that you have sources that show that TAMU Linux is notable, I would suggest reading Help:Your first article and writing the article, as that is the criteria for being listed in this list article. The "first GUI" verbiage has already been changed, per my above comment. - Aoidh (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]