Wikipedia

Talk:Linux kernel/Archive 5

< Talk:Linux kernel
Latest comment: 6 years ago by RobbieIanMorrison in topic Developer certificate of origin
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Kernel series: #.# vs. #.#.x

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The reasoning I changed the maintenance tables to use just "kernel series #.#" is due to majority of the instances where "kernel series" is used, the minor revision "x" is not included. So I was attempting to make the article more consistent in that parameter. I personally feel it also looks cleaner.  #FF9600  talk 15:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hm, "kernel series 3", for example, looks somewhat weird when compared to "kernel series 3.x", at least to me. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
To me, either looks fine, but there should be some form of consistency maintained within the article.
In the Linux kernel mailing lists they typically just state the first two parts of the version numbering when talking about a kernel series, and there isn't any use of an "x". So in light of that, I feel that when referring to the entire 3.x kernel series, "kernel series 3" is more correct when opposed to "kernel series 3.x".  #FF9600  talk 07:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Could this be acceptable, maybe as some kind of a compromise? As I wrote in my edit summary, such subsection headings are also shorter, and "3 series" awkwardly reminds too much to the BMW 3 Series, for example. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I still prefer "3 kernel series", but the compromise you have presented is acceptable.  #FF9600  talk 14:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The Linux operating system is based on it

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Please show me "the Linux operating system"

Linux is a Kernel and just a Kernel, nothing else. Without other tools, like a compiler is it even not possible to transform the source code into binary code.

Who is responsible for this page please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShalokShalom (talk • contribs) 08:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Community, working by using reliable sources and reaching consensus. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the first poster. People are used to talk about Linux as an operating system, but in fact it is just a kernel which happens to fill the giant gap of the GNU operating system, which lacks a kernel. This kernel out of the GNU-project , the Hurd, is still in development (since the eighties) and has reached version 0.7. Linus' kernel came at right time, right place to make GNU a fully functionnaly operation system, which is correctly called GNU/Linux (see link in history), to avoid confusing with the GNU/Hurd operating system (GNU with Hurd kernel) or even exotic versions with some BSD kernel, like Debian GNU/kFreeBSD (https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/). GNU/Linux is most used of all these versions of GNU, so there's the cause of the confusion. I think Wikipedia should stick to the facts, and in my humble opinion there are two facts: 1) it is the GNU/Linux operating system and 2) Most people DO refer to GNU/Linux as Linux. A nice discussion about this: http://www.howtogeek.com/139287/the-great-debate-is-it-linux-or-gnulinux/ --213.118.64.148 (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
PS: I don't know why the person who changed my text is excusing himself: this is a very good change! I'm happy with it. --213.118.64.148 (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Linux kernel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  Done, all fine except for the redundant |deadurl=yes parameters added by the bot. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Linux kernel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove "Feature history" section?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is very bloated and the content is of pretty low quality. The "Feature history" section is a good example of needless detail that's inherently incomplete. There are so many features in the Linux kernel that a reasonable list of all comprehensive additions could easily comprise a large Wikipedia article.

Any objections to removing this section? Risc64 (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I'd leave it, but tagged with {{Update section}}. Having it around, even outdated and incomplete, IMHO doesn't hurt. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Move version tables in the Maintenance section to new article

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

These tables, besides being quite long, are responsible for over half of the references in the article, which significantly clutters the Linux#References section; my sandbox for what the article looks like without said tables. Also, I think the information they show is not particularly important in understanding Linux on the whole; in other words, I think they clutter the article.

These problems might be avoided by moving the tables to a new article, such as Linux release history, or merging them into History_of_Linux. --Michael Reed (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! How about simply making those tables collapsible and collapsed by default? IMHO, that would be much better than moving them to another article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with moving these tables into a separate/different article (as long as {anchor}s for the corresponding subsection headings are retained for incoming links), but note that the reference-clutter problem might be addressed in this article by using a separate reference group for the (highly "repetitive") mailing list citations in the tables. This would at least allow these citations to appear in a different section than the rest of the refs in the article. (Unfortunately, I'm not going to take the time to mock up an example of what that would look like. :) - dcljr (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks dcljr and Dsimic, I like both those ideas. I'll go ahead and make the tables collapsible, then try out that citation group mockup later. --Michael Reed (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. Looks great to me with the tables collapsed by default. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Linux is a kernel and a so called operating system family but it's NOT an operating system

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

@Dsimic: Hoping that you will discuss with people also *listening* (for the records: you reverted a file without seeing the related discussion File:Unix timeline.en.svg, and then you reverted a page without a lot of reasons Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Computing#Kernel Linux: "name advocated by"). Let's talk about your edit Special:diff/725390107/725715594: Linux is *always* a *kernel*. The term itself refers *also* to an *operating sytem family* (read carefully: operating system family, not to an operating system): it means that a lot of operating systems use Linux as a kernel, and they are called "Linux", or "Linux distributions" or *"Linux operating systems*", but nowhere in Wikipedia is right to talk about a "Linux operating system". So please stop saying "Linux operating system" in the name of the MOS: the MOS it's quite clear about that, and it doesn't promote that big error. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that what you're saying is contradicted by reliable sources. According to The Linux Foundation on its What is Linux page, "Just like Windows XP, Windows 7, Windows 8, and Mac OS X, Linux is an operating system." This is also shared by the release notes for the Linux 4.x kernel: "Linux is a clone of the operating system Unix". IEEE refers to the Linux operating system numerous times. These are not news sources erroneously misspeaking, these are relevant and reliable sources on the matter. The three quick examples I could give, Torvalds, the IEEE, and the Linux Foundation, would not make such a mistake. As Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, and the reliable sources on the matter do refer to Linux as an operating system as well as the Linux kernel, it would be remiss to omit that terminology on the basis that you personally disagree with its usage. If you wish for Wikipedia to stop referring to a Linux operating system, you must first have reliable sources stop using that term. - Aoidh (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@Aoidh: Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not something written down by the POV of primary sources of a subject. And pay attention to don't search for sources that say only what you want to find. I mean: the repo of Linus Torvalds it's a bit confusing but the description is quite clear as Linux kernel source tree; linux.com has its "commercial" authors and I think they are not so meaningful in this discussion. I mean: Search for every distribution based from Debian to Red Hat. *All* (not an exception) of them package Linux as a kernel (choose one at random there File:Linux Distribution Timeline.svg... yes, also Android). See linux-* packaged in Debian in the kernel folder: linux-base. See linux-* packaged in rpm distributions tagged as a kernel linux-*. See Linux in the kernel folder of Android kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt. See Linux kernel sources in Gentoo linux-sources, and again, and again, and again. Think about this mistake. Linux it's a wonderful kernel, a lot of operating systems make use of it, a lot of people call them "Linux distributions", "Linux operating systems", away from en.wiki it's OK to call them "GNU/Linux", but, again, we have to stop to say that Linux is an "operating system". --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but that's not how it works. We cannot ignore sources simply because you don't like what they say, and they are not "POV" just because the content does not fit into your narrative. You said "Linux" does not refer to an operating system. I showed, through reliable sources including the creator of Linux, that this is simply untrue. Linux refers to an operating system. This is not an opinion, it is a fact showed through reliable sources. Linux is used to refer to an operating system. Disagreeing with it does not make it a WP:NPOV violation. - Aoidh (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Aoidh: (What? I've avoided linux.com because its authors abuse of simple-terms, and now we have to clarify things)... Take Linux Foundation: «Linux is, in simplest terms, an operating system. [..]» etc. Bolding the *in simplest terms* why we should stop reading at that line? In facts, after that: «[..] Torvalds built the core of the Linux operating system, known as the kernel. [..]». This is the key: what Linus Torvalds has done? A kernel, nothing more. The word "Linux" is here very ambiguous, but it's disambiguated in the next paragraph, where we can find how Torvalds decided to take an already existing operating system and put his kernel under it (historical note: the GNU operating system was developed for 7-8 years before the 1991), and from the POV of Linus Torvalds we have to call that whole thing (GNU + the Linus kernel) as his kernel: «[..] A kernel alone does not make an operating system, but Stallman's GNU tools were from a project to create an operating system as well --a project that was missing a kernel to make Stallman's operating system complete. Torvalds' matching of GNU tools with the Linux kernel marked the beginning of the Linux operating system as it is known today.». We have to be neutral. Don't hide the POV of Linus Torvalds: he only developed a kernel, and he wants that other's work was to be called as his kernel. Not very neutral! Here, we have to be neutral. We have to attribute to Linus Torvalds only his work: his kernel, and not a whole operating system. Again: "Linux operating system family" is more neutral to talk about operating systems that make use of the Linux kernel. "Linux operating system" is strongly not neutral. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
"Operating system" is not a completely clear term in general. The only characteristics of operating systems that are widely agreed upon are: "An operating system (OS) is system software that manages computer hardware and software resources and provides common services for computer programs." The kernel does both of these things and so by this definition, Stallman is incorrect about Linux; it is an operating system, with or without GNU. Ninedotnine (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ninedotnine:   Unrelated [1] [2]. An operating system it's a collection of user programs, a kernel allocates machine's resources. With your (sources?) definition also GNU Hurd is an operating system. And... don't be silly. GNU Hurd is not an operating system. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I was quoting the first sentence of Wikipedia's own Operating system article. Also, your gnu.org link seems to corroborate exactly what I said: "To confuse matters, some people use the term “operating system” to mean “kernel”. [...] The use of “operating system” to mean “kernel” is found in a number of textbooks on system design, going back to the 80s." That sounds like reliable sources opposing GNU's definition. Clearly the academic use of the term "operating system" refers to something that, yes, includes Hurd.
You seem religiously dedicated to this topic. You might want to reconsider whether your point of view is neutral. Ninedotnine (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Valerio Bozzolan, you're repeating the same things over and over. Reliable sources describe the Linux operating system. The only sources that argue otherwise are those that are forum posts pushing GNU/Linux. You keep saying that the information you disagree with is "not neutral" and that "we have to be neutral", but the information you're disagreeing with is entirely in keeping with WP:NPOV. - Aoidh (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that with "reliable sources" (e.g. IEEE) you are talking about Linus Torvalds interviews, and I don't wont to be boring to repeat again that it's not OK to ignore the Torvalds' non-NPOV... --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Aoidh: About "forum posts pushing GNU/Linux", I don't know we are talking about the same sources. Let's take the Linus Torvalds words: [3]. «Linux. This is a free minix-like kernel for i386(+) based AT-machines.» In that document Linus Torvalds was talking about his work, he worked on a kernel. You know, a kernel is not something really useful for users, and in fact he cited the GNU Bash that he run over his work. Linus Torvalds used pieces from an existing operating system that was missing a kernel, to build a kernel. Now, thanks to Linus, we have the Linux kernel (not to be translated as "the kernel of Linux", but Linux itself as a kernel) --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
You're citing the kernel page where it talks about the kernel and then using that as if it's evidence that Linux refers simply to the kernel? Of course the Linux kernel documentation is referring to the kernel specifically, that's hardly some bombshell revelation. Linux is an operating system. That is is also the name of the kernel does not negate this. End of story. - Aoidh (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Aoidh: You know what line you have to insert in the GNU GRUB, LILO and SYSLINUX of every "Linux distribution" to run the Linux. You have "only" to require a big binary file in the RAM at startup, that is, the kernel is ready and you can boot your operating system. Probably the definition of "operating system" is something under POVs, but the kernel definition isn't (I hope). And I don't want to ask you if you have never tried Debian GNU/kFreeBSD with XFCE... You know: the kernel takes a great part, but don't continue saying that it's the whole part...
That has nothing to do with what you're trying to say. You're trying to say that Linux is not an operating system, but that it's solely the name of the kernel. That the kernel has a specific function, or that the kernel can be used in other ways, is irrelevant. You keep trying to argue that because the Linux kernel exists, that the operating system as a whole cannot possibly be called Linux, but this is verifiably untrue, because reliable sources unambiguously refute what you're trying to say. You said "it's not an operating system because it's a kernel", but reliable sources refute that. The reliable sources are what matter. Unless you bring something new to this discussion, there's no reason for it to continue, so as long as you keep trying for this "because it's a kernel it can't be an operating system" argument that's long been refuted, I won't be responding. - Aoidh (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to annoy, I only want to learn. Can you kindly show me a primary source of what you say? I mean: we know that people say "Linux Linux Linux" for "operating systems with the Linux kernel", and other people for that say "GNU/Linux GNU/Linux GNU/Linux". Even "reliable sources" do this POV-war. But I'm not talking about this: we know that Wikipedia content should not be conducted by the majority (only titles, pherups), and so I only want to know where is the Linux operating system itself. Did/does it exist? Is it something used everywhere and I don't have the eyes to see it? Help me open my eyes, because my POV it's obvious: nowadays I can only see a kernel hosted at kernel.org. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

2.6.x for sure unsupported?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Contrast with "Canonical will provide extended support until April 2017" for 3.x something); should similar be said for RedHat (CentOS) and 2.6? They say thay support, everyone can backport..; this may be wrong forum to ask, but can RedHat claim (good) support if upstream has dropped? comp.arch (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Linux kernel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Relationship between kernel-to-userspace ABI and LSB

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Well, the (unreferenced) section about "Kernel-to-userspace ABI" really does not discuss about the actual kernel-to-userspace ABI of the Linux kernel. There is some writing about LSB, that is (now mostly forgotten) effort to standardize which services and dynamically linked libraries should be present and where they should be located. As far as I know LSB is not related to the kernel development at all. --ilmaisin (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Linux kernel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Linux kernel version 3.13

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Version 3.13 is incorrectly listed as no longer maintained: "Canonical provided extended support until April 2016." This is still updated. I run Ubuntu 14.04 on my PC and have just installed the latest kernel version of Ubuntu 3.13 which is numbered 3.13.0-144

Åke Bertenstam (Sweden), arawn74@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.17.15 (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

An addendum to what I wrote above. This is the information about the kernel version I get from the command uname -a

Linux ake-Aspire-Alina 3.13.0-144-generic #193-Ubuntu SMP Thu Mar 15 17:03:53 UTC 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.17.15 (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Developer certificate of origin

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My understanding is that the project introduced developer certificates of origin (DCO) in the early-2000s in response to the SCO controversies. Should this be mentioned and referenced? And should DCOs have their own wikipedia article? With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linux_kernel/Archive_5&oldid=1026959081"