Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BSD and Linux

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BSD and Linux

This article is inaccurate from the first sentence. There are too many generalizations about the differences between *BSD and Linux in the article. I encourage anyone to read through the article and make a convincing argument that it should be salvaged. Sether 21:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a compare-and-contrast essay. That's original research, useless to Wikipedia. Superm401 | Talk 21:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see how this page can be fixed, it's straining for a far too broad topic and has been done by people that do not even know the facts about the subject. I really can't see anything in there worth saving. Janizary 21:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is inaccurate and biased. It has no place on Wikipedia. Cmihai 21:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)cmihai _{- Cmihai's first edit. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 18:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete. Article is incoherent, inaccurate, poorly structured and certainly not NPOV. Nothing in it looks worth saving. NicM 21:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC) _{- NicM's first edit. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 18:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete. This is just an essay, and a lousy one at that. Procus the Mad 22:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorrowful Delete. I've put a bit of effort into this page and I think it has valuable data- but that data belongs on a general BSD page or Linux page. Not in separate article which essentially is an essay. Sorry guys. --Maru (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or revert to earlier version. I started the article when I wasn't quite as aware of our original research policy. I later intended to back it up with published sources, but never got to it. It has since degenerated into a horrid article that isn't likely to serve it's purpose. If anyone cares to, check the earlier versions to see if anything is worth saving. It could be taken from there and redone using the Kirk McKusick's books and a few others to legitimately discuss the differences between the OS families, but I'm not going to get to it. - Taxman ^Talk 18:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete joining Taxman's and Maru's consensus. The first sentence of this article is, "BSD and Linux are two families of open-source computer operating systems." If a need for deletion is due to the article's being perceived as inaccurate from the first sentence, then the important issue is merely that the two OSs are favorably named on the same page. So be it, give 'em what they want and delete the entire article. If someone wants to recreate it anew in the future, let them take up any founder's responsibility along with the no-win language and cultural hassles. Like Maru, I worked a lot on this. Like Taxman, I was not quite as aware of Wiki's O-R policy when I contributed. Whether this article is horrid, bad, informative, or was consumer useful to me is moot. It should not remain published here if it is undocumented and thus indistinguishable from Original Research. Wiki O-R policy excludes informative insider knowledge because, by "insider" definition, their knowledge is infrequently documentable. My thanks to all who provided content. From the expert editors I've learned much of what I had hoped to find on first arrival at the article. Especially AlbertCallahan who knows a lot about shells (and cooking), a critical choice for new B & L users along with packaging systems. (How are your taco shells? "yum" :)
Milo 11:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad content was never completed. Wikipedia "BSD and Linux" is GFDL copyright ("copyleft"), so if you think it can be fixed, copy it from Google's cache:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_and_Linux and pass it on to other web sites. Milo 03:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is NOT in the public domain. It is copyrighted by contibutors and licensd under the GFDL. Do not copy without following the GFDL. Superm401 | Talk 12:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May or may not be true - if he can get permission from all the authors involved and not use the licensed edits then it would indeed be public domain Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter in practice. Generic lists of facts and organizing outlines aren't copyrightable; for example, non-telco telephone listings. The paragraphs can be rewritten until a plagiarism detector like free WCopyfind doesn't match any uncommon long phrases other than referenced quotations. Poof, old license gone -- analogously to the way both BSD and Linux came into existence from copyrighted UNIX. Milo 07:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the article to be informative, and answered questions that were in neither linux or BSD. I agree it needs to be fixed, but I hate it when useful true objective information is erased. 66.75.49.213

That you found this article to be informative is a key reason to delete it, because it isn't right. It's because of how bad it is that it is up for deletion in the first place. Janizary 21:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I don't know much about Linux and BSD. Why doesn't someone just go in and delete anything that is false or subjective and leave an objective comparison of the two? I came to wikipedia to help me decide between installing freebsd and linux as my first non-windows OS experience. This was the only wikipedia article I could find with a comparison. 66.75.49.213

Because if everything that was viewed as wrong was deleted, you'd end up with an even more useless article. There is a massive conflict of personalities between most Linux and BSD users, from Linux users constantly spreading misinformation and slander to the BSD users constantly belittling Linux users for their usage of a worse system. And that's just the BSD perspective, the Linux users think of BSD as a dead and arcane piece of garbage that only an idiot would use. And even then, there are worse things going on between the two overcultures. The fundamental differences between the two groups causes constant conflict and pretty much constant and embittered arguments, often with no real cause behind them. My opinion, if you want to learn Unix, you go to OpenBSD because it's documentation is better, if you want a Windows replacement you go Ubuntu. Janizary 03:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term "BSD" describes any modern day derivative of the Berkeley Software Distribution (such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.) or the Berkeley Software Distribution itself. In other words, "BSD" refers to an operating system. The term "Linux" describes the operating system kernel developed by Linus Torvalds – not an operating system. To compare a complete operating system to just a kernel is like comparing apples with oranges. Not only that, but you can't compare "BSD" to any other operating system because "BSD" doesn't refer to a single operating system – it refers to a family of operating systems that are actually very distinct from each other. I don't understand why the article is titled "BSD and Linux" if it's really a comparison of FreeBSD and GNU/Linux. But a change in the title of the article isn't going to fix anything either – why does Wikipedia need a comparison of one specific BSD derivative and "GNU/Linux" (which doesn't refer to an operating system either; there is no GNU/Linux operating system, just distributions that combine the Linux kernel and GNU userland)? The basic idea behind the entire article is flawed. Sether 03:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) There were some old-title links that the linking page editors (maybe you?) needed to update. By talk page consensus, the article is no longer comparing one specific derivative with another entire family. The article compares the two families generally and makes a non-comprehensive sample comparison between one derivative and one distro (copy-editing in "derivative" was on the to-do list). The "just a kernel" objection was already covered in the article. The empty "The Linux Kernel and the GNU Utilities" to-do section was to intended to explain Richard Stallman/GNU's marginalization as being why he started the "just a kernel" issue (see the talk page). If you consider yourself an unbiased Wikipedian, maybe you should read the article again, particularly the Scope section, and withdraw your AfD as based on obsolete understandings (IIRC, you do strike-through formatting of your AfD intro, and add a brief retraction). Milo 07:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. The article is garbage. It varies wildly between being overly simplistic and being terribly confused and confusing. Not to mention often spouting complete rubbish (does anyone really need to be told that new users sometimes have problems? what is all this Major Software nonsense? is Wikipedia really the place for this rather odd Marxist analysis, interesting - if poorly presented - idea or no? what is this rubbish about FreeBSD linux compat? have you even read the handbook?). A clear (simple or in-depth) introduction to the differences between the BSDs and Linux may or may not be useful (I think not), but this article is not it and will not become so short of completely starting again. NicM 15:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

To 66.75.49.213 Yours was like my experience, except I wanted to compare of all the BSDs and Linux, for future consumer folks like us. Simplifying, even though BSD and Linux have mostly indistinguishable OS features, a persistent eye-roller objection was that they can't be compared because the two OSs have different cultural names for too many things. That language issue could be resolved ...except that too many objectors don't want it resolved. With persistent nitpicking, the objectors plus normal critics won't give the outnumbered unbiased editors the year or more it would take to document the article's extensive use of O-R look alike insider info. Milo 07:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.