Talk:Tux/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Joshua David Williams
imported>Chris Day
(good for navigation)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Archive box|auto=long|approved=yes}}
==Tux's name==
==Tux's name==
Did Linus name Tux?  Got evidence for that?  It's silly to say that "Tux" was not chosen because it was short for "Tuxedo."  Surely the persons talking about the name saw that "Tux" is short for Tuxedo and liked the name partly for that reason.  I mean, I don't know this, but surely that's how it went down.  No? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:48, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
Did Linus name Tux?  Got evidence for that?  It's silly to say that "Tux" was not chosen because it was short for "Tuxedo."  Surely the persons talking about the name saw that "Tux" is short for Tuxedo and liked the name partly for that reason.  I mean, I don't know this, but surely that's how it went down.  No? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:48, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 03:22, 21 April 2007

Tux's name

Did Linus name Tux? Got evidence for that? It's silly to say that "Tux" was not chosen because it was short for "Tuxedo." Surely the persons talking about the name saw that "Tux" is short for Tuxedo and liked the name partly for that reason. I mean, I don't know this, but surely that's how it went down. No? --Larry Sanger 17:48, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

I learned most of what I know from this page and the mailing list archive it links to towards the top. I know what you mean. I'll search the Usenet archives and see what I can find. --Joshua David Williams 17:51, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
I'd say just cite some references to back up what the article says and you're good (see PHP for a good example of the reference system) --Eric M Gearhart 18:22, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
It took a lot of digging, but I finally found the accurate origin of the name. It was not made by Linus at all, and has a two-fold meaning. See the citations on the naming section. --Joshua David Williams 19:19, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
Also I'd say it would make sense to throw a citation right after "In 1996, a discussion was started on the Linux kernel mailing list of what to use as the Linux logo. Early on, some proposed that it should be a fierce animal. " with a link to the LKML post you're talking about... as for me it's 4:30 am and I'm heading to bed. I did enough tonight I think lol --Eric M Gearhart 19:24, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Nearly done?

How close do you guys think this article is to being completed? There's not a heck of a lot more to add (though I can think of a few minor things, such as what Linus said about a corporate logo verses a mascot). --Joshua David Williams 12:58, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Hah I suppose we could add Linus' description (of being a slightly portly Penguin that looks like he just ate) or something along those lines. I'd have to find the quote. After that, yea I'm pretty well spent. Some articles don't have to be huge to be Approval-ready --Eric M Gearhart 13:06, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
That's exactly the reference I was thinking of. I found it on this page originally, but I'll find the Usenet link for the citation. --Joshua David Williams 13:07, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
I found the original post here. I'm not sure exactly where to mention it yet, so I could use some input while I'm mauling it over. --Joshua David Williams 13:38, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
I just finished reading the post, and this part stood out to me:
Then we can do a larger version with some more detail (maybe leaning
against a globe of the world, but I don't think we really want to give
any "macho penguin" image here about Atlas or anything). That more
detailed version can spank billy-boy to tears for all I care, or play
ice-hockey with the FreeBSD demon. But the simple, single penguin would
be the logo, and the others would just be that cuddly penguin being used
as an actor in some tableau.

I think it's important to point out that Linus wasn't completely against images of a ferocious penguin, but just wanted the official logo to be a cute picture. Perhaps this post deserves a new section? --Joshua David Williams 13:44, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Hmm maybe a "Linus' original description" as a subsection of History or something? --Eric M Gearhart 13:50, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
That sounds like a great place to put it. I really love the way he described Tux. It puts a very clear picture in your mind. --Joshua David Williams 14:45, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

lin64.jpg

Can anyone find this image? I couldn't find it anywhere. --Joshua David Williams 15:09, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Got it http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/historic-linux/ftp-archives/sunsite.unc.edu/Sep-29-1996/logos/lin64.jpg It's also now at http://la.gg/v/lin64.jpg/ as a mirror --Eric M Gearhart 17:02, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
That's it? I thought it had a penguin in it ?:( --Joshua David Williams 17:04, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

I was unable to find a trustworthy citation for the penguin the UK team sponsored for Linus. Moreover, the two pages I found conflicted with one another; one said it was for his birthday, and the other said it was his Christmas gift. It could have been both for all I know since he was born so close to Christmas. If no one can find a reliable source, I'm not going to mention it. --Joshua David Williams 16:56, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Better safe than sorry on web sources that conflict. --Eric M Gearhart 17:03, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Er, Subtopic?

As the creator, is Larry Ewing really a sub-topic? Wouldn't he be a related topic, or shouldn't we let people click on the Larry Ewing link at the top of the article if they want to know more? I'd think subtopics are more along lines of what's at Linux: Linux history, Linux kernel, Linux distribution, etc. --Eric M Gearhart 10:28, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

I don't think so. Tux is a subtopic of the Linux articles, and as far as I can tell, Larry Ewing's only notable connection to Linux is Tux (though he may correct me when [or if] he replies to my e-mail). --Joshua David Williams 10:30, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Done yet?

Can a Computers editor please give us some guidance on what we need to do to get this article at a '1' status? I personally think this article has covered all the ground it can cover, and is very near being ready for Approval status --Eric M Gearhart 10:33, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

I'm working on a somewhat large edit at the moment. After I save it, it should be finished unless I get a reply from Larry. --Joshua David Williams 10:35, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

External linnks

According to CZ policy we're supposed to have all external links in an "External links" section and then reference that in the article. I moved the link to ccpenguin.jpg into the External links section --Eric M Gearhart 10:45, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Changed status to 1

I went ahead and changed the status to 1. If an editor wishes to change it back, he may, but I believe this article is ready for approval. --Joshua David Williams 12:27, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Stupid thing

Some how or another, one of my major edits did not appear in the history, so I just re-wrote the missing parts. The article will need re-submitted for approval, I'm afraid. --Joshua David Williams 13:21, 10 April 2007 (CDT) OK removing tag was prematurely, outcommenting it was also not needed only the proper version needed being inserted. Robert Tito |  Talk  13:30, 10 April 2007 (CDT)