Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Parasti (talk | contribs) at 01:26, 18 February 2007 (moved Talk:Linux kernel to Talk:Linux (kernel) over redirect: Proper disambiguation for consistency with most articles. (Plus the kernel's name is Linux, period.)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

/Archive 1: Aug 2003 - Jun 2006

Kernel Version

This article is about the linux kernel, past, present, and future. I posted some useful info on how a person can know what version they are running. Chealer deleted it saying this article is not a usage manual. Knowing what kernel version you are using is not a usage manual. It is useful information that relates to the article. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas 11:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on the tone of the article. A descriptive article which indicates the differences between releases might be fine. A "how to find out what kernel you're using" piece less so. The article suffers for extlinkitis already anyway. Chris Cunningham 10:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mascot

Hi all,

I think that the mascot section should be either removed or considerably expanded. An extra sentance can be added to the top or something, but the current eight words doesn't seem to be enough for its own header. Ultra Loser 11:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If anything, I think it should be removed. Tux the mascot doesn't really have much to do with information on the Linux kernel, it just seems to be extraneous information. tgok 15:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Linux Kernel Implementations

Is it possible to create a new wikipedia page about Linux Kernel Implementations on multiple hardware architectures? This page will contain the list of "Linux Kernel portability" from this page.

oops

mention about Linux kernel oops (maybe in Technical features section)

Tagged lists

At least the "new features per release" section should be folded into the general history. I don't see that a list of every single architecture Linux has been ported to is very useful either, given that it's unlikely to ever be complete. Chris Cunningham 10:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

md

The MD disambiguation page points here to "Linux (kernel)", but this article never mentions "md". Should we mention "md" in this article, or should we make a "md (Linux)" article, or is there some other article that the MD disambiguation page should point to? --75.27.231.105 03:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Translating "History of Linux"

Please note the translation effort currently at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Linux/Translatation:Geschichte von Linux. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for better disambiguation (see Talk:Linux (disambiguation))

I think GNU/Linux should be the main operating system page, Linux (kernel) should be about the kernel, GNU/Linux naming controversy should remain as is, and in fact Linux should be a disambiguation page that points to all three, saying this: Linux either refers to GNU/Linux the operating system, also known as just Linux, or Linux the kernel. For more information on this disambiguation, you can read about the GNU/Linux naming controversy. --Chris Pickett 04:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered a 5th page, Linux (disambiguation). In opinion, this should be moved to Linux. Please discuss at Talk:Linux (disambiguation). --Chris Pickett 04:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think it'll be difficult convincing some people to change the name of the operating system page to GNU/Linux though. I find the current first paragraph of that page confusing, as GNU/Linux is far more common than any other operating system using the Linux kernel. Guyjohnston 01:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation (transclusion)

Hi, Linux kernel#Pronunciation is now transcluded from {{Pronunciation of Linux}}, but the references don't show up at Linux kernel#References. Maybe we should copy the info back..? --Kjoonlee 16:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks to be a problem with the MediaWiki software. --Imroy 05:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation - contradiction?

It seems that the section on pronunciation is contradicted by http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IfHm6R5le0 : Linus uses in that video (or something close to it), rather than 'li' using as mentioned in the text. Has he changed his mind at some point? --Chris Wood 14:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the section, referencing the Youtube video --Chris Wood 16:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Seminar Paper On Linux Kernel 2.6

Hi,

  I have added a new post " Seminar on Linux Kernel 2.6 " Hope It will be useful for Students who like

to study the basic concept of linux kernel 2.6.

Virtual11234

Poor Place for GPLv3 Discussion

Original paragraph:

Currently, Linux is licensed under version 2 of the GPL, and there is some controversy over how easily it could be changed to use later GPL versions such as the upcoming version 3 (and whether this is desirable). Torvalds himself indicated in version 2.4.0 that his own code is only under version 2. However, the terms of the GPL state that if no version is specified, then any version may be used, and Alan Cox pointed out that very few other Linux contributors have specified a particular version of the GPL.

There are a number of problems with this paragraph. Foremost is that there are no reliable sources to back anything up; everything on this topic is just hearsay. When the two warring sides agree, or when a court case reaches a decision, then we'll have material worthy of Misplaced Pages. Right now, a simple "converting Linux to GPLv3 is expected to be quite difficult" (which most everyone seems to agree on) is about the only statement that's appropriate to include in Misplaced Pages.

Especially troubling is the clause: "However, the terms of the GPL state that if no version is specified, then any version may be used." This is provably false and probably a textbook example of wikiality. Read the GPLv2. Notice how the "or later" clause comes after "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS". That means it's NOT a part of the license. Has Linus ever included this clause in his code? Certainly not. Therefore, and this is provable, the "GPLv2 or later" suggestion does not apply to the Linux kernel. Here's more, from about as authoritative a source as you can find at the moment: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/27/339

Please do not use Misplaced Pages to advance your own personal agenda. And please ensure that you have actually READ the license before stating something as fact. Thank you. -- Bronson

Hey, Bronson. Speaking of "personal agendas" and "actually READING licenses", better check yer facts next time:

9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

80.233.255.7 14:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous. Notice that the text you quoted comes after "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS." That means it's not a part of the GPL, it's only a suggestion. -- Bronson

I deliberately included the section number in the quote. Only terms and conditions are numbered in the GPL. Your comment indicates that you have neither read the licence nor my reply. 80.233.255.7 23:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted both of your edits. Also, the paragraph you modified cites the Linux kernel mailing list; I wouldn't call that an "unreliable source". 80.233.255.7 14:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to get into an edit war over something like this. I truly have no agenda, other than keeping bias out of Misplaced Pages. Here is my paragraph:

The Linux kernel is licensed under version 2 of the GPL. The FSF is currently working on GPL version 3 to try to clarify the license terms and close some loop holes. It's not clear yet how realistic a project it would be to move the entire kernel to GPLv3. And, because V3 is slightly less permissive than V2, there is debate within the kernel community as to whether it's even desirable.

All I ask is, which one is more appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Answer: probably neither since this information is just too new. Also, you might want to reexamine your idea of authoritative source -- it does not agree with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources.

This paragraph is way better than the one I reverted. Some references and I'll be happy to see it in the article.

I think it's safe to say that most news sites pick up posts from the Linux kernel mailing list for their stories. I don't see how is such a news site more reliable than the mailing list. 80.233.255.7 23:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Alan Cox not mentioned?

Alan Cox's involvement isn't mentioned anywhere at all in this article. Seems to be an oversight, but I don't have much knowledge to add. Maybe others can. Gronky 19:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Linux supports such and such architectures

from User talk:ChrisRuvolo

Hi. It bothers me that you did not explain your reasoning when you reverted my edit to Linux kernel article. I would appreciate if you did that at the article's talk page. Thanks. 80.233.255.7 21:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Showing the breadth of Linux portability is important. Removing the entire list with the comment "The kernel probably has its own documentation" doesn't indicate any reasons why this information would not be encylopedic. Is the information lengthy? Yes, but that is okay. Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

I entirely agree that it's important to emphasize portability. I disagree with the approach. The list can be summed up in a sentence "Linux supports many architectures" followed by a link to the section in kernel docs where the architectures are listed. Because Misplaced Pages is also not an indiscriminate collection of information, plus there's this "unencyclopedic lists" template at the top of the article. 80.233.255.7 22:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I find this material encyclopedic, but if people find it distracting in this article, I would suggest that it be moved into another article, using summary style. Perhaps Linux kernel portability or List of architectures supported by the Linux kernel. Your thoughts? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the policies have to say about "list articles", but I've seen a couple of those before, so maybe that would be an appropriate solution. 80.233.255.7 11:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)