Talk:Linux

Restart: is there anything we want to do with the Linux page?

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bludgeoning on Talk Linux Softwareperson1000 has been blocked from editing this page for 7 days This is a preventative measure only and not intended to signal any specific longterm outcome of that ANI discussion.

The blocking admin Chattenoir advised "I think it might be a good idea to discuss the matter without him and see where everyone stands" so I started this discussion to do just that. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC) modified 01:34, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

---

I object to Family: Unix-like in the infobox. I don't see any good sources supporting it.

• Here are the Google books Engrams over the last 10 years for (case insensitive) "Linux family", "BSD family", "UNIX family", "Android family", and "DOS family":

The engram viewer could not find any uses of (case insensitive) "UNIX-like family", "UNIXlike family" Android Family, or CP/M Family"

• Here are the Google books Engrams over the last 10 years for (case insensitive) "Linux", "BSD", "UNIX", "UNIX-Like" "DOS", "UNIX-like", "Android" and "CP/M":

No "UNIXlike".

• And here is the same, but going back 50 years:

DOS got so big that you can't see the bottom three, so here they are by themselves:

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Um, that was me not the administrator that wrote that xD. Hence also why I made the entry above. Chattenoir (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I've made a comment on the infobox discussion, but to elaborate here, I agree with updating the infobox to include Linux as the family given that the sources support it, and Unix-like as a family was largely a Wikipedia-created categorization rather than a reflection of sourcing. - Aoidh (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Fixed the error. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

While the ngrams results are indicative, we should actually cite some specific reliable sources from which those ngrams statistics are generated. It's much clearer for the readers to link sources that support this concept directly and in detail, than to depend on them having to observe a general tendency of sources to use this term, which in turn may or may not all be with the same meaning. --Joy (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of these engrams are, it says "

Search for "BSD family" yielded only one result.

error

Search for "android family" yielded only one result.

error

Search for "Linux family" yielded only one result.

error

Search for "DOS family" yielded only one result. "

From 2016 to current.

Searching on 2001 to current the differences between each of them are really minor.

Am I seeing something different to what other's see here? Chattenoir (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

It's a glitch in Google's software. You see the errors when you click on the link I proved, but if you turn case sensitivity on then off again they disappear even though the URL stays the same. Also, the chart cannot possibly be true if that error message was true. The Linux family and DOS family lines would be identical and on top of each other. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

---

Mining the above overly-long discussion, I think this is a good source: CompTIA Linux+ Study Guide

It says "You should be aware, however, that Linux isn’t a single OS, but rather a family of OSs"

(Page 2 according to the page numbering in the book. page 32 of 658 according to the PDF numbering)

Thanks to Aoidh and Chattenoir for suggesting the source. So where should we put the citation? Change UNIX-Like to Linux in the infobox and put the citation there? First paragraph?

Other possibilities:

• '"The Linux kernel is the operating system's kernel used by the Linux family of operating systems."' --'
• '"The Linux family of operating systems is UNIX-like, meaning that they function similarly to the UNIX operating system"' --Kingsland University
• '"The Linux kernel is an open source monolithic Unix-like computer operating system kernel. The Linux family of operating systems is based on this kernel "' --Daily Cybersecurity

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2026 (UTC) ( Edited --02:06, 25 September 2026 (UTC) )

It's used as a reference in the first sentence currently (reference 12 as of Special:Permalink/1376142115), but I didn't include a URL link because when I added it I was using my physical copy as the citation.- Aoidh (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Normally I'd say three citations on a seemingly mundane and simple part of a lead is overkill, but I have went and added my citation and the Kingsland uni one you have linked here, as I think it would be good to mitigate the risk of this discussion getting down into the weeds again. Chattenoir (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

The EmbLogic link is an unsigned website of a company selling a training program. I'm not aware of them being any sort of an authority on the matter. Their twitter account has 200 followers and their LinkedIn link is broken.

The Kingsland University link is another unsigned website, of what appears to be an online university. Likewise they do not have an article, and I'm not aware of their credentials in the topic area.

The Daily CyberSecurity link is an article signed by "Do Son", but the link to that person doesn't seem to work. Their introduction paragraph seems to be signed by "Wiki", which leads back to here (WP:CIRCULAR).

Please don't use any of that as references. Surely there has to be something better out there. --Joy (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the Kingsland cite I added from the lead, pending further discussion.

Lazy of me, I just saw "university" and assumed it was a good source, it's not actually a university but a 'blockchain training program' Chattenoir (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Not everything hosted even by a legitimate university should be assumed to be a reliable source without looking further, as they often host student and professor content that is not vetted or checked for accuracy, but is hosted for internal use. - Aoidh (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, normally I would look closely, but I skipped all that since it was being provided by someone else, very stupid of me. Chattenoir (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

As I stated in one of my exchanges with softwareperson1000 above, it is actually quite difficult to find sources which refer to linux as a family of operating systems, most sources, including some high quality ones (i.e: https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/linux), refer to it as an operating system singular. I suppose whether you view Linux as an OS, or a family of OSs will ultimately come down to a Ship of Thessus argument since distributions tend to change components such as Desktop environment, package manager, and firmware, (and ofcourse you can change those things yourself too).

What confuses the issue is that there are 'families' of distribution, i.e. debian family, arch family, et cetera.

Obviously it is not exactly something that has to have a single certain manner of articulating. I struggle to imagine how the first sentence of the lead can be written without the use of the word family to articulate that the distributions form a group that is a part of the same OS. Although Microsoft Windows says it is a singular OS, right before saying that it is composed of families... Chattenoir (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Worse, most sources (without using the dreaded "family" word) treat Windows7/Window11 as completely different things but Slackware7/Slackware11 and Android7/Adroid11 are treated as different versions of the same thing.

Windows7 and Windows11 share a lot of underlying code, but Windows98 and Windows2000 were developed completely separately and have quite different underlying code.

FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD are completely separate projects, but they are often referred to as the BSD family.

Are CP/M 80 and CP/M 86 part of the same "CP/M family"? They share zero code. But CP/M-86 and DR DOS do. Linux for X86 and Linux for ARM share zero of the actual machine language instructions that run on the CPU but share a boatload of the C code that compiles to those machine language instructions (which is pretty much the point of using C instead of assembly language like CP/M does).

And then we have what I call the tragedy of the infobox. Despite everything in the infobox supposedly coming from the body, when you put in an infobox parameter someone comes along and fills it in. So every person has a religion. Every school has a religion. Every operating system has a family. It has a family listed in the infobox even if it is AmigaOS, GeckOS, HelenOS, Phantom OS, RedoxOS, SharpOS or ToaruOS, which no same person consider to be part of any "family of operating systems". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe there's some other phrasing that could be used. For example, we introduce it as an operating system, and then quickly explain the ecosystem - the concept of distributions etc. Whatever the reliable sources on the topic actually do. The phrasing doesn't have to strictly match the phrasing on other articles in the topic area, it primarily has to match the sources. --Joy (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, as a task for myself later or others that are inclined:

1. Create a list of the highest quality sources (perhaps the top 5 to top 10) that provide an introductory/holistic explanation/definition of what Linux is.

2. Establish the general wording that they give in regard to how they bring distributions into the definition.

3. Decide whether or not to rewrite first sentence of lede, how to rewrite it, and whether the word 'family' is involved, based on this. Chattenoir (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Wait...what? Start with what the sources say and then write the article to match? I thought we were supposed to start with our own prejudices and half-baked thoughts and then do a Google search for a source that matches! I have been doing it wrong all of these years.

Seriously though, I really like the above plan. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I will list the top 11 sources which I found to highest quality below, and quote where they defined Linux.

1:

Quality assessment: Outdated but high quality, written by multiple reputable authors, widely published.

Linux in a nutshell: A desktop quick reference. 5th edition.
Published by O’Reilly
1st - 1997
5th - 2005
Ellen Siever, Aaran Weber, Stephen Figgins, Robert Love, and Arnold Robbins
ISBN 0-596-00930-5

Page 1.
"Today, the term ‘Linux’ is often used to mean a software environment with a Linux kernel, along with a large set of applications and other software components. In this larger meaning, many people prefer the term GNU/linux, which acknowledges the central role played by tools from the Free Software Foundation’s GNU project as complements to the development of the Linux Kernel.
Linux systems cannot be technically referred to as a ‘version of Unix’, as they have not undergone the required tests and licensing. (*Before an OS can be called ‘Unix’, it must be branded by The Open Group) However, Linux offers all the common programming interfaces of standard Unix systems, and, as you can see from this book, all the common Unix utilities have been reimplemented on Linux. It is a powerful, robust, fully usable system.”

2:

Quality assessment: As a peer reviewed software engineering journal this would seem very high quality.

How configurable is the Linux Kernel?
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, Volume 35, Issue 1 Page 1-48
2025

Abstract.
“the operating system linux”
1.Introduction.
“the open source operating system linux”
2.1 The linux Kernel
“Linux consists of two parts: First, the Linux kernel constitutes the core of the Linux operating system...”
“ ... “
“Second, Linux distributions aim to provide fully functional systems for certain use cases by bundling the Linux kernel with appropriate configuration files and application software. For example, the well-known Ubuntu Desktop distribution integrates the Linux kernel with a package manager (dpkg/apt), a desktop environment (GNOME), and other applications (e.g., LibreOffice and Thunderbird). Another notable example is the Android mobile operating system, which ships with a heavily modified Linux kernel.”

3:

Quality: I believe this is a website of the Linux foundation, I’m not sure if this is a quality source and I’m also not sure if it would be a primary source or not. But I thought I’d include it and see what others think.

"Just like Windows, iOS, and Mac OS, Linux is an operating system. In fact, one of the most popular platforms on the planet, Android, is powered by the Linux operating system. An operating system is software that manages all of the hardware resources associated with your desktop or laptop. To put it simply, the operating system manages the communication between your software and your hardware. Without the operating system (OS), the software wouldn’t function.“

4:

Quality: Redhat is a major software company, a subsidiary of IBM. The “third largest contributor to the Linux kernel” according to the Wiki page.

“Linux® is an open source operating system (OS) created by Linus Torvalds in 1991. “

5: (related to 4, as parent company and similar definition)

Quality: IBM is one of the largest tech companies in the world, and was an early adopter of Linux for it’s server infrastructure.

“Linux is an open source operating system (OS) based on Unix.“

6:

Fox, Richard (2015). Linux with operating system concepts (2nd ed.). CRC press (published 2022). p. 10. ISBN 978-1-003-20332-2.

Quality: This is the source I added, it is reasonably well published, and not too outdated.

Page 10.
“Linux is a family of OSs, loosely based on Unix, and largely developed and supported by the open-source community. Linux is an OS that uses a monolithic kernel supported by modules that can be loaded and unloaded. Linux is an OS whose interface with applications software is made through system calls.

7:

Smith, Roderick W. (2009). CompTIA Linux+ study guide (PDF) (1st ed.). Indianapolis, Ind: Wiley Pub. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-470-50384-3. Linux isn't a single OS, but rather a family of OSs

Quality: The other source currently cited in lede. Slightly outdated being a 2009 study guide. As a study guide the language is very much instructional rather than entirely technical or literal.

Page 2.
“You should be aware, however, that Linux isn’t a single OS, but rather a family of OSs, so this book doesn’t provide a step-by-step description of Linux installation, but only an overview of some of the important concepts and choices available.”

8:
/
Handbook of Digital Forensics and Investigation
2010
Chapter 6 - UNIX Forensic Analysis
Cory Altheide, Eoghan Casey

“Linux is used to describe any number of operating systems based upon the Linux kernel. These systems generally use code from the GNU project for the core of their userland utilities, and thus you may hear the term GNU/Linux used as well. It can be argued that the more cumbersome GNU/Linux is a more correct description of the total system, however Linux is the more common usage. Linux systems are packaged in distributions. A distribution generically refers to a collection of applications and a Linux kernel. These are usually wrapped together on installation media, and will often come with specific branding, distribution-specific modifications, and a package management system to enable the addition of new or updated software. Popular general purpose distributions include RedHat/Fedora, Ubuntu, Slackware, and SuSE.“

9:

Encyclopedia of Information Systems
ISBN 978-0122272400
Academic Press
10 Aug. 2002
Hossein Bidgoli

Quality: Outdated.

“Linux is a UNIX-inspired operating system that brings together two strands of software development, including the kernel development effort spearheaded by Torvalds and the suite of cloned UNIX utilities and program development tools developed by the GNU Project, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which seeks to develop a freely redistributable version of UNIX. By 1993, Torvalds had developed a UNIX-like kernel that was wi\Ning increasing respect, but a complete operating system requires additional utilities and tools. At the same time, the GNU Project had not yet developed a functioning kernel. The combination of the Linux kernel with GNU and other tools and utilities resulted in a complete, usable operating system. For this reason, some prefer to differentiate the kernel from the operating system by calling the latter GNU/Linux, but others disagree, pointing out that some commonly used Linux OS components derive from sources other than the GNU Project.“

10.

Quality: A red hat affiliate, educating on open source.

“Linux is the best-known and most-used open source operating system.”
“...”
“Linux is also different in that, although the core pieces of the Linux operating system are generally common, there are many distributions of Linux, which include different software options. This means that Linux is incredibly customizable, because not just applications, such as word processors and web browsers, can be swapped out. Linux users also can choose core components, such as which system displays graphics, and other user-interface components.”

11.
/
Operating System Basics and Practice

ISBN: 9789819521845
2026
Wenjian Zhou, Peicheng Wang, Yindong Xiao, Jiasheng Hao, Ltd. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.

Lastly, there is no single quote here that provides a definition, but this high quality book source pages 17-41 calls different Windows versions a family, seems to refer to linux distros are different OSs, and then also refers to Linux as an OS in the singular multiple times. Chattenoir (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

The survey above is genuinely useful, and having read the earlier thread in full I think its own results answer the question it set out to settle. A few observations.

1. Source 2, the ACM paper, peer reviewed 2025: "the Linux kernel constitutes the core of the Linux operating system", with distributions described as "bundling the Linux kernel with appropriate configuration files and application software". The strongest source in the survey treats the kernel as a component of an operating system and the distributions as systems built by bundling that kernel with other software. That is the distinction the earlier thread kept getting told was original research.
2. Source 8, the Handbook of Digital Forensics and Investigation: "Linux is used to describe any number of operating systems based upon the Linux kernel. These systems generally use code from the GNU project for the core of their userland utilities... It can be argued that the more cumbersome GNU/Linux is a more correct description of the total system, however Linux is the more common usage." A reliable source explicitly distinguishing the colloquial usage from the more technically accurate description, and treating both as worth mentioning. Joy raised a sourcing concern along these lines earlier and it was never answered.
3. Source 9, the Encyclopedia of Information Systems: the kernel combined with GNU tools and utilities "resulted in a complete, usable operating system", with GNU/Linux noted as the term preferred by some. This matches the historical account given in the earlier thread, which was dismissed at the time.
4. On "family". Your own conclusion in the survey is that most sources, including high quality ones like Red Hat and IBM, refer to Linux as an operating system, singular. So the tally: two textbooks, one a 2009 study guide that was a misquotation until days ago and whose web edition still lacks the quoted text per your own check, say "family". The Linux Foundation, Red Hat, IBM, and the ACM paper say "operating system". For a level-4 vital article, the first sentence currently rests on the two weakest sources in the survey. It was said in the earlier thread that removing the word "family" entirely would settle the matter, and the survey supports that removal, because the majority framing does not use the word at all.
5. Proposal: rewrite the first sentence to match the majority framing, with distributions and the family terminology handled in the body where the two textbooks can be cited properly. If "family" stays, it should be attributed in text to those sources rather than stated flatly as fact. Wikibuilder Pro (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Softwareperson1000, is that you again? --Joy (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

This is a real quandary. The writing style looks to me to be Softwareperson1000. "That is the distinction the earlier thread kept getting told was original research." Who was it that was told that? Unless I am mistaken it was Softwareperson1000. "This matches the historical account given in the earlier thread, which was dismissed at the time." Who wrote the claim that this new editor says was dismissed? Unless I am mistaken it was Softwareperson1000.

But is any of this actual proof? No. I hate bringing things to ANI without clear proof in the form of diffs. If someone else bring this up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bludgeoning on Talk Linux I will offer a "it looks that way to me" opinion, but I will also note that I may have an unconscious bias -- because I very well might have.

Alas, anyone commenting on this is almost certainly using Linux (I personally switch between Win11 LTSC and FreeBSD), and Linux doesn't leak information useful to a checkuser the way Windows does. And many Linux users have the ability to log on to a remote server which puts the IP address in another country. I certainly do. So all we have is [1] behavioral evidence filtered through our biases, and [2] Two brand new accounts that have posted a single message supporting Softwareperson1000 using the same talking points Softwareperson1000 used previously. Which is exactly what I would do if I was an asshole and decided to do a Joe Job on Softwareperson1000. Like I said, This is a real quandary. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I've been emailing with a certain Open Source expert about this 'Family' matter. I doubt he will take enough interest to actually get involved (and I haven't asked him too), but there is naturally a (very) slim chance he will; he could arrive as a new Wikipedia editor if so.

Honestly I think the only reason he responded to my email was to chide me for saying "linux" and not GNU+Linux.

Just FYI. Chattenoir (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. The writing style looks like Softwareperson1000 to me too - right down to recycling the "that was dismissed in the earlier thread" framing. Both of those quotes trace back to Softwareperson1000's own arguments, which is quite a coincidence for a first-ever edit.

But your Joe Job point is the one that keeps me from wanting to haul this to ANI. Like you, if I wanted Softwareperson1000 indeffed, creating a couple of one-post wonders that argue his side in his own style is exactly what I would do. So the behavioral evidence cuts both ways, checkuser can't settle it, and going to ANI with no diffs just gets us a room full of people confirming their own biases. Dude Daikon (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)                                                                           

• I keep pondering the difficulty of doing Taxonomy on operating systems. Clearly Windows XP and Windows NT are part of the Windows family, But are Window 98 and Window ME different members or just different versions the same single member?

The so called "operating system" of the C64 was a basic interpreter in ROM. Yes it did have a load command that would pull a file from a cassette drive or a commodore 1541 floppy drive, but the 1541 wasn't like other drives. The C64 didn't move the heads or read the sectors. The 1541 had its own OS and the basic interpreter just sent simple serial commands to it.

The first IBM PC, thinking that they were competing with the C64, had no floppy or hard drives and loaded a basic interpreter (called cassette basic) from ROM that supported loading and saving programs from cassette but not floppy or hard drive. The first clones didn't have cassette basic or a cassette port so they loaded GW-BASIC as a program. And today the Raspberry Pi Zero loads micropython with no OS. So even whether a computer has an OS isn't fixed in stone. Start a floppy only IBM PC without putting in your DOS floppy and you get to run good old cassette basic. Do the same with a clone and you get an error. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Withdrawn

Withdrawn. This needs to be addressed by following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thread retitled from Straw Poll: Should we vacate the 2021 discussion about the "Family" field in the infobox and go back to our normal editing / consensus process?. The discussion at Archive 52 is dated 2022, not 2021. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Posted by Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

This concerns these edits:

Related:

• Linux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes
• Talk:Linux/Archive 52#Replace the 'Unix-like' field with 'Linux' or remove the field
• Talk:Linux/Archive 55#I dispute the existence of "Linux" as a family of operating systems
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bludgeoning on Talk Linux
• Talk:Linux#Restart: is there anything we want to do with the Linux page?

Background:

When an RfC decides a content dispute, it puts handcuffs on all future editors of that page. They cannot change the content without posting a new RfC. The usual result is a new set of handcuffs. The content is still locked, possibly to different content. Often this is exactly what is needed. The content dispute is sitting there simmering away waiting for an opportunity to boil over again. Sometimes the handcuffs are no longer needed. Editors lose interest of are blocked. New sources resolve the issue, or a talk page simply gathers new editors who get along and are able to resolve things in the usual way.

In this case, the handcuffs were placed, not by an RfC, but by an ordinary discussion.

This straw poll asks whether we should remove the specific set of handcuffs that were applied five years ago.

What this discussion is not

• This discussion is not to re-litigate the actual content that was in dispute five years ago. That will be decided either through discussion elsewhere or possibly an RfC. Any attempt to discuss the underlying topic dispute is off topic, and editors are advised to not respond to such comments. You are free to open a new section to discuss the content you wish to dispute.
• This discussion does not change Wikipedia's existing policy that a discussion posted on Talk:Linux only affects the Linux page. Despite The discussion closer's assertion that the discussion affects the Linux kernel page and multiple Linux distribution pages, none of which were informed about the discussion, it does not.
• This discussion does not change Wikipedia's existing policy that the infobox is intended only to highlight facts already established in the article ("An infobox is a panel that summarizes key facts about the page's subject" --MOS:IBX and "[Infoboxes] only summarize material from an article—the information should still be present in the main text" --H:IB).
• This discussion does not change Wikipedia's existing policy that "facts already established in the article" whose verifiability has been challenged or are likely to be challenged must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. --WP:V

(It should be noted that in many cases the material is never challenged. Scientific Linux has contained "Family = Linux (Unix-like)" since 2019 without any source or mention of "family" in the article and nobody cares. Both claims are obviously true without a source that specifically says "Scientific Linux is part of the Linux (Unix-like) family of operating systems")

Ground Rules

Because of the history of disruption on this topic, editors are asked to abide by the following voluntary ground rules. If you disagree with any of these rules, please post your objection in the threaded discussion section. If there appears to be consensus for the change, we can agree modify the ground rules as appropriate.

• One !vote per editor in the survey section.
• No editing of the discussion outside of the threaded discussion and survey sections. Propose changes in the threaded discussion section and ask whether there is a consensus to make the change.
• In order to make the survey easy to scan, do not reply to any !vote in the survey section. All discussion must be in the threaded discussion section. Any editor who sees a reply in the survey section is free to move the reply to the threaded discussion section per WP:TPOC. If you see someone replying in the survey section, do not reply in the survey section. That just makes it worse. Reply in the threaded discussion.
• Please keep the survey !vote brief. A sentence or two is fine, but longer arguments should be posted to the threaded discussion section.
• No incivility or personal attacks. In fact, it would be best to avoid saying anything about any editor. Stick to the discussion question and go to their talk page if you cannot resist making personal comments.
• Do not attempt to dominate the discussion. If you are about to repeat a point you made before, don't. If you have posted more comments than anyone else, slow down. If your post count is over twice that of whoever is in second place, just stop.

History:

On 02:27, 20 November 2001 Linux was created with no infobox (Template:Infobox OS) would not be created until 2005)

On 11:49, 17 April 2006 137.193.138.178 added an infobox with OS family = POSIX-conformant Unix-Clones

On 04:24, 20 June 2006 Centrx (arbcom blocked) changed it to OS family = Unix-like where it remains to this day.

Survey

(Please do not post threaded responses in this section)

Please answer with one of the following:

• Option A: Further refinements of the "family" infobox entry can be pursued through the normal editing process.
• Option B: Further refinements of the "family" infobox entry can not be pursued through the normal editing process.
• Option C: Something else. (Please briefly explain what and if needed, explain why in the threaded discussion section.)

---

• Option A: I actually have doubts that any non-RfC has such authority, yet here we are. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

---

• If it turns out that there are still people chomping at the bits waiting to disrupt this talk page over OS families, I will start crafting an RfC at the appropriate page to apply to all operating system families in operating system infoboxes. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  Is all of this formality really necessary? Why can't we just remove the "family" parameter until there is agreement on what it should say? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  look at the two edits at the very top of this discussion: I was told "regarding this, you'll need to re-open the discussion before not after making this change". I see that you have made a change. It will be interesting to see if you get reverted and are told the same thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  You were reverted once. I think that @Chattenoir was trying to say "This change is potentially controversial, so it would be a good idea to discuss it first; don't make your potentially controversial change and then open a discussion." This is likely because you put Could be UNIX. Please Discuss in a hidden note in the edit.

  Regarding your "Background" section above: You say that When an RfC decides a content dispute, it puts handcuffs on all future editors of that page. They cannot change the content without posting a new RfC. Where did you get this idea? WP:RFC says Because consensus can change, no consensus is permanently binding, including a consensus formed in a discussion advertised via RfC. This page is not under the consensus required restriction or any similar restrictions.

  In short, I believe you are perceiving Chattenoir's actions as status quo stonewalling when they actually aren't. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  They repeated the claim in the section below: "The decision you've made to 'remove it until we have discussed it' is questionable, as the 2022 consensus was to keep. When making a change you generally must reach consensus before and not after making the change." So far the consensus is 100% in favor of vacating that prior discussion with zero objections. That's with a whopping ONE person (me) casting a !vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  "So far the consensus is 100% in favor of vacating that prior discussion with zero objections. That's with a whopping ONE person (me) casting a !vote."

  Can you explain this to me? I have no idea what you mean by this Chattenoir (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  Please explain what "regarding this, you'll need to re-open the discussion before not after making this change" means. It appears that I am unable to understand the sentence. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  I explained above, and I'll elaborate a bit: I think it means that if you want people to "please discuss" whether the family parameter could be Unix, it's better to reopen the discussion directly instead of making an edit saying "please discuss" and expecting people to reopen the discussion. Although I could be wrong. The best way to know what Chattenoir meant is to ask them. @Chattenoir: what did you mean by this sentence? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  Just FYI, I haven't been involved in this discussion since I posted that long list of sources in the section above (which were meant to help the discussion).

  I really do not have time to read all of this, can someone give me a TL;DR of what is being asked of me please? When did I say "please discuss"? Chattenoir (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  Although I still haven't read half of the text here, I think I understand what you are referring.

  In 2022 there was a discussion to choose between three options , keep it saying "Family: unix-like", change it to "linux", or remove it altogehter. The result was to keep it saying "unix like".

  There has not been a discussion on this yet, and Guy macron seems to have had a "straw poll" unpromoted and not following any discussion, and they were the only voter.

  I am not against a change necessarily, but there needs to be a discussion, I believe the section created by @SuperPianoMan9167 below "If Linux is a family, is it a member of itself?" is now serving as that discussion - although the section title should really be more fucused than that, such as "do we want to change the family field in infobox", but that's fine.

  @Guy Macon Do you understand and on board with this? Also, if you are accusing me of things please @ me so that I can respond. Chattenoir (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  Seriously? No other discussion? So Talk:Linux/Archive 55#I dispute the existence of "Linux" as a family of operating systems and Talk:Linux#Restart: is there anything we want to do with the Linux page? didn't happen? You can demand responses all you want, but I refuse to go off topic. The topic is whether to vacate the 2022 discussion about the "Family" field in the infobox and go back to our normal editing / consensus process. If you want to discuss the topic of the 2022 discussion again, you know where to go. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  The topics you've linked here were about whether to remove the term "family" from the opening sentence of the lead. I really do not see how that results in a consensus to remove the family field from the infobox.

  "go back to our normal editing / consensus process."

  I do not know what you mean by this.

  "If you want to discuss the topic of the 2022 discussion again,"

  What? Chattenoir (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  Also Linux is described in the first sentence as a "family of free and open-source software Unix-like operating systems". Is Linux a member of the Linux family if Linux itself is a family? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  Was the sentence "Any attempt to discuss the underlying topic dispute is off topic" unclear? Please start a new section of you want to discuss whether Linux is a member of the Linux family. We are here to discuss whether to vacate the 2021 2022 discussion about the "Family" field in the infobox and go back to our normal editing / consensus process. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  (Not to be that guy, but the archived discussion took place in 2022, not 2021.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

If Linux is a family, is it a member of itself?

What the title says. I was advised to start a new section to discuss this. How can a family of operating systems be part of itself? Stating that Linux is a member of the Linux family in the infobox implies that Linux is both an individual OS and a family of OSes at the same time, which makes no sense to me. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

That's a very interesting question. Now that I think about it, it seems weird to me as well. I am thinking that not listing a family at all for pages that are themselves families is the best solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Here is the prior discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linux/Archive_52#Replace_the_'Unix-like'_field_with_'Linux'_or_remove_the_field

The decision you've made to 'remove it until we have discussed it' is questionable, as the 2022 consensus was to keep. When making a change you generally must reach consensus before and not after making the change. Chattenoir (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

So far the consensus in the section above is 100% in favor of vacating that prior discussion with zero objections. That's with a whopping ONE person (me) casting a !vote. Until they decide to make me King Of Wikipedia, I think we need more responses to turn "the consensus so far" into "the consensus is". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

What? Chattenoir (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

---

I thought unix-like is an umbrella term for all POSIX-compatible / BSD-derived stuff. (At least that's what I was told during my education.)

I personally would prefer "unix-like". 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 13:03, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that

• "[Infoboxes] only summarize material from an article—the information should still be present in the main text" (H:IB)

and

• "any facts or claims challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations" (WP:V),

Do you have a citation to a reliable source that say that Linux is a member of the unix-like family of operating systems? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Chattenoir provided one when they reverted my edit: Granted, it says "UNIX family", not "Unix-like family", but still. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

That would support Family=UNIX in the infobox. Deciding that it should be Family-Unix-like is WP:OR. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

So Linux is an unrecognized child of UNIX...? 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 14:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Did you see? I added an inline cite earlier.

"unix-like" is also mentioned to define linux several times in the article. Chattenoir (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Nobody doubts that Linux is unix-like. Plenty of sources for that. It is also popular, free and open source, and POSIX compliant. That does not support Family=popular, Family=free and open source, or Family=POSIX compliant. Those are descriptions, not claims of family membership. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

By that logic no families exist other than select few branches with a corporate / famous person's name attached to it. I also don't think there are sources referring "Linux" as a family beyond just descriptions. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 14:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

There is a term for using logic when you can't find a source. That term is WP:OR. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

You're arguing that "unix-like" is not a description of family. I'm arguing that it is. I don't think you can say I'm committing more OR than you do. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 14:53, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

- Simply for the sake of argument, I was thinking about how the Unix-family categorization sits with the fact that Linux doesn't contain Unix code. This feels like judging family based on similarities in design.

Which raises the problem of Android being a direct copy of iPhone OS and L4/Darbat as a binary-incompatible copy (-ish) of Darwin. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 14:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Here are the Google books Engrams over the last 10 years for (case insensitive) "Linux family", "BSD family", "UNIX family", "Android family", and "DOS family":

The engram viewer could not find any uses of (case insensitive) "UNIX-like family", "UNIXlike family" Android Family, or CP/M Family"

• Here are the Google books Engrams over the last 10 years for (case insensitive) "Linux", "BSD", "UNIX", "UNIX-Like" "DOS", "UNIX-like", "Android" and "CP/M":

No "UNIXlike".

• And here is the same, but going back 50 years:

DOS got so big that you can't see the bottom three, so here they are by themselves:

NOTE: A bug in Google's software adds some false "Search for X yielded only one result" errors, Turning case sensitivity on then off clears the errors.

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

May I ask why you thought it necessary to copy-paste your comment from 11 days ago in this discussion? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Because "unix-like family of operating systems" doesn't exist outside of the minds of some Wikipedia editors? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Can you find an occurrence where anyone says "Linux is part of the Linux family" (or equivalent)...?

I am indeed making OR here, hence the discussion page. I'm just requesting you to apply the standards equally; e.g., whatever reasons you use to reject the counter argument, it should also be ran against oneself. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 14:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I have already said that, once it was pointed out to me, that saying that Linux is part of the Linux family is weird and unsourced. Just like saying that Linux is part of the unix-like family is weird and unsourced. I would be OK with Family=UNIX or with not saying what the family is. That's because UNIX has at least one source. The others have none. Are we going to follow WP:V and WP:RS or not? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

There were responses to this comment on the prior article, perhaps respond to those first. Chattenoir (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't care about responses. Care only about sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Then I agree with not mentioning family in infobox at all, for the principle of least wrong. If something is too complex to be stated one-line, we'd just say it in text. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 15:15, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

You don't care about responses?

Let me just copy and paste what I responded with then:

"

I'm not sure what the point of these engrams are, it says "

Search for "BSD family" yielded only one result.

error

Search for "android family" yielded only one result.

error

Search for "Linux family" yielded only one result.

error

Search for "DOS family" yielded only one result. "

From 2016 to current.

Searching on 2001 to current the differences between each of them are really minor.

Am I seeing something different to what other's see here?}}

"

And also what @Joy responded with:

While the ngrams results are indicative, we should actually cite some specific reliable sources from which those ngrams statistics are generated. It's much clearer for the readers to link sources that support this concept directly and in detail, than to depend on them having to observe a general tendency of sources to use this term, which in turn may or may not all be with the same meaning. Chattenoir (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

What part of "NOTE: A bug in Google's software adds some false "Search for X yielded only one result" errors, Turning case sensitivity on then off clears the errors." are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah, you're right I see that now. Joy's response is still relevant. Please try to be polite.

Also, I really do not see how "linux family" being more common on google engrams serves the argument. "linux family" is frequently used to refer to the families of distros, i.e: "Arch is a linux family". Not "linux is linux family". Chattenoir (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Topic ban-violating comment.

     1. "I don't see any good sources supporting it." I must point out, that is not the state of things. In fact there are two textbooks cited right here in this thread; Fox, ''Linux with Operating System Concepts'', page 10: "Linux is a family of OSs, loosely based on Unix, and largely developed and supported by the open-source community", and the CompTIA Linux+ Study Guide, page 2: "Linux isn't a single OS, but rather a family of OSs". These are not blogs or training websites, they are published textbooks, and they state the concept explicitly rather than vaguely. So the claim that there are no good sources is, as far as I am concerned, simply not accurate.

     2. As for the Google Books ngrams, I am not convinced the tool shows what you think it shows. The corpus is books, and computing literature is poorly represented in it, so a low count of the exact string "Linux family" there is perhaps not such a meaningful measure of whether the concept is established in the field of computing. Also note your own experience with it; the case sensitivity of the tool is glitchy, as you yourself had to explain when the error messages showed up. If the tool miscounts in one instance, it may well miscount in others, so I would not treat those curves as reliable evidence of anything. Positive statements in two textbooks outweigh the absence of a string in one particular corpus. I would think that is just how sources work. 

     3. A question I raised before remains unanswered; is Debian GNU/kFreeBSD a part of the Linux family, if not why, and what family does it belong in? Any definition of OS family that cannot answer that is perhaps not such a good definition. And more can be asked, who decides what counts as a family? Is a concept only real if a Google Books ngram says so?                                                           

I am open to the possibility of being proven wrong, but as far as I am concerned the two textbooks settle it; the family concept is well established and well sourced. Perhaps the discussion should proceed from there. Non Legitimate Child of Richard Stallman (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

A question I raised before remains unanswered; is Debian GNU/kFreeBSD a part of the Linux family, if not why, and what family does it belong in? This seems to be your first comment on this wiki and that question was raised by SoftwarePerson1000, who has been permanently banned from computer operating systems. I don't have any objections to this whole UNIX debate that is going on, as I don't frankly mind either way that could be going on, but this debate is getting strange. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 04:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

A topic ban applies to the person, not the account; creating a new account will not allow you to circumvent this topic ban. - Aoidh (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Softwareperson1000 --Guy Macon (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion: Created focused sections, set ourselves a time limit, and RfC

For several months now, this talk page has been bogged down in arguments about the term "family". Mostly this was on whether 'family' should remain in the first sentence of the lede, and now is about the Family field in the infobox too.

We also potentially now have puppets of sotwareperson1000 or new users being drawn to the drama (either way a problem)

I suggest that we do four things:

• 1. Create a section titled "Should we change or remove the Family field in the infobox"
• 2. Create a section titled "Should the term family be used to describe Linux in the first sentence of the article" (although largely in favour of keeping the term, the discussion is as of yet unresolved)
• 3. Close the previous discussions.
• 4. (EDIT: OPTIONAL STEP) Request an RfC on both of these discussions if we are unable to come to a conclusion in X days (perhaps 10 days is fair, given how much discussion has already been had)

+ any other discussion topics anyone feels is necessary.

On both discussions we should outline that the discussion must be focused and avoiding going off topic Chattenoir (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Please note that any infobox-related consensus discussion or RfC conducted on an article talk page is automatically void if the result violates Wikipedia's sitewide policies or guidelines.

This was decided by the the Arbitration Committee statement of principles on levels of consensus and can only be undone by the Arbitration Committee.

Any RfC with an option that violates Wikipedia policies or guidelines is likely to be reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement with a high probability of being voided and closed before it finishes if it is found to have an option that violates Wikipedia's existing policies or guidelines.

In particular, whatever you decide to list as a possible choice for the "family =" entry in the infobox must not only be in the body of the article, but must also be supported by a citation to a reliable secondary source that directly supports the claim without resorting to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

I highly recommend reading the entire decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Final decision before posting any RfC that applies to the infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not suggesting any change to the infobox. I'm just trying to help you out. Chattenoir (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

You re-added "Unix-like" after it was removed. Twice.

You also told two different editors that they were not allowed to remove your preferred version , citing an old discussion as if it were an RfC. So please don't pretend that you are "just trying to help me out" when you have actually decided that "family = Unix-like" is the only correct and unchangeable answer and that "family = Linux", "family = UNIX" and no family entry at all are all wrong. It's OK to have a position on what should be in the "Family =" field. Just don't pretend that you don't have a position.

You did add a citation, which would normally address Wikipedia's policy that whatever you put after "Family =" must be supported by a citation to a reliable secondary source that directly supports the claim. The only problem is that your citation clearly says "This chapter covers the UNIX family, focusing on two of its members: Linux (mostly) and (Open)Solaris." That citation supports "Family = UNIX". Not "Family = Unix-like"

So again, if you list "Unix-like" as an option in a RfC without first finding a source that specifically says that Linux is a member of the Unix-like family of operating systems, your RfC will be invalid per arbcom decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I really do not appreciate your hostility.

From my point of view WP:onus was on the editors making those changes, and no discussion around the infobox was had.

You are hyperfocusing, with the most negative of assumptions, on my mention of RfC. My mention was RfC was only a part of my suggestion to get these disputes sorted, and you are talking about it like it is anything more than a request for comment...

I really do not have time or inclination to argue with you, you can consider me out of this discussion, and I'm even going to unfollow this article. Chattenoir (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no hostility in calmly telling you that the claim you keep adding is not found in any source. There is no hostility in calmly telling you that the source you provided does not support the claim you keep adding. This is standard Wikipedia collaboration. We each present what we think is best and try to arrive at a consensus. That involves actually discussing the fact that you added a source that clearly says "UNIX Family" and pretended that it says "Unix-like family". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: There is hostility in indirectly threatening to take Chattenoir to AE. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to not ping you. Sorry! SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

The way you have been wording your more recent responses hasn't exactly been coming off as calm. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 21:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is starting to become a hostile argument. This wasn't supposed to be ending like this, so I don't blame you for leaving the discussion at that point. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Any RfC with an option that violates Wikipedia policies or guidelines is likely to be reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement with a high probability of being voided and closed before it finishes if it is found to have an option that violates Wikipedia's existing policies or guidelines.

@Guy Macon: Did you forget that AE does not make content decisions (and neither does ArbCom)? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Please don't ping me. AE addresses user behavior. Refusal to follow WP:V after having it explained to you multiple times is user behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

AE declaring that an RfC is void because it violates policy is not user behavior. That's a content decision. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)