Talk:Comparison of Linux distributions

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison 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

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Linux B‑class Top‑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 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.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Inactive distributions

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]

Oracle Enterprise Linux missing from the picture

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.

Guix System

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]

MX Linux missing from this list.

MX Linux began in a discussion about future options among members of the MEPIS community in December 2013. Developers from antiX then joined them, bringing the ISO build system as well as the Live-USB/DVD technology. The name “MX” was chosen to combine the first letter of Mepis with the last of antiX, thus symbolizing their collaboration. In order to be listed on DistroWatch, MX Linux was presented as a version of antiX and released its first version in March of 2014. It received its own DistroWatch page as a separate distribution with the release of the first Public Beta of MX-16 on November 2, 2016. 72.188.27.127 (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it. Guy Harris (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Distributions doing regression tests and continuous integration

A huge difference in the quality of the distribution comes from the presence of a continuous integration service, where applicable. For instance, many linux users have no idea that Debian CI checks each new package test suite against reverse dependencies test suites, which vastly improves the quality of the distribution. Kapouer (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]