Talk:Linux kernel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Kernel 3.19 released[edit]

Resolved: 3.19 is present in the release table, with the link mentioned below being used as a source

This needs to be added to the table of releases. As per [1]

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

@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 [2] [3]. 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: [4]. «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?[edit]

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[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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