Talk:Linux kernel/Archive 1 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linux_kernel/Archive_1

This is an archive of past discussions about Linux kernel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The article starts in a weird way, with a discussion of the freeness of the kernel. I think it should start with couple of sentences that define what the Linux kernel actually is and how it got started. --Anon

What language(s) is the Linux kernel actually written in? The Wiki article says "almost entirely in C", but I wonder if actually, the Linux kernel uses gcc compiler extensions to the C language. If so, is it proper to simply state that it is written in C? --LarryW 22:16, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Maybe not ANSI C, but it is C. Some device drivers may include inline assembler, but as such they are architecture-dependent. I assume that's what the "mostly" refers to. -- Miguel

C with a few gcc extensions. But even with a few extensions, it's still C. It's "almost entirely in C" because a small minority of the code is written in assembler. --Deleteme42 20:20, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

94% C, kernel and drivers have assembler. FYI even Intel C compiler now has extensions to compile.

Should it be Compaq Alpha? They merged with HP... --Anon

I think that this page needs more information on the capabilities of the Linux kernel; things like it's RCU implementation, it's new unified device model, User Mode Linux, ACPI etc. I'll do what I can, but I'm sure that there are people who are better suited to this task than I am, and who would know how to better present the extra information I am looking for. --MJA

This article needs a good description of how the kernel is arranged internally, starting with the directories in the kernel source, kernel/, fs/ sound/ and so on, how they relate to each other and how the build process takes place. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:24, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

Are you sure that is appropriate? Might be more fit for Wikibooks than an encyclopedia article. --maru (talk) Contribs 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if you really want them link to the resources(tons of them out there), but a encylopedia should be a quick terse overview. Nothing too indepth or technical if we can help it.

I read in MatthewWilcox changes that "NetBSD has been ported to almost as many architectures" Do we have some numbers for that? Some quick googling gave these pages: [1] for NetBSD and [2] for Linux. It certainly seems that NetBSD "wins" in number of ports. Does anybody has better references? --Sander123 13:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://www.kroah.com/log/2004/09/29/#more_archs is a claim from a Linux kernel hacker that Linux supports more architectures than NetBSD; it references the Linux User Group HOWTO. --Neilc 14:41, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Linux people count by CPU type. (Linux wins, in part because no MMU is required.) NetBSD people count by some ill-defined thing related to motherboard and firmware. There are Linux kernels that boot on both Atari and Amiga systems; to NetBSD these are distinct ports. It is very difficult to list things the NetBSD way: Does one count Linux running on a landmine? Is the Xen support a distinct port? AlbertCahalan 02:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It would good to have on this page (or another page) a list of the people involved in Linux and who they are. The people I could find in WikiPedia so far were: [[[Linus_Torvalds]]], [[[Alan_Cox]]], [[[Ingo_Molnar]]], [[[Marcelo_Tosatti]]] and [[[Miguel_de_Icaza]]] has worked on it in the past. a good place to start might be in the Linux MAINTAINERS file. --Anon1

Don't forget Robert Love. --Anon2

and Eric Raymond!... wait... no, no, I forgot wikipedia was supposed to be based on facts.

Did anyone notice that the page was doubled in various places over the last week or so? Man, that's embarrassing. Apologies if I've reverted anyone's changes; I think I have it right, but everyone's fallible... --grendel|khan 17:19, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't notice :(. I guess that's what I get for being more concerned about commas and hyphens than the actual content of the article! —HorsePunchKid→龜 18:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The kernel doesn't have shared libraries, it has loadable modules. Shared libraries are managed entirely by the user space toolchain. The kernel's support for shared libraries consists of the mmap() system call by means of which a shared library file (.so) is made to appear as a data object in the virtual address space of a process. The kernel doesn't "know" or "care" what is in that mapping. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.139.122.66 (talk • contribs) 14:06, July 22, 2005.

If you feel that there's a factual problem with the article, please be bold and fix it! —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:35, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

"Also, sometimes after the version there will be some more letters such as 'rc1' or 'am2'. The 'rc' refers to release candidate and indicates a non-official release. Other letters are usually the initials of a person. This indicates a slight fork of the kernel by that person. e.g. am2 would stand for Andrew Morton."

It's a branch, not a fork, right?

Correct. A fork would imply that these developers are going off on their own seperate development. That's not what's happening. In most cases they're trying out and working on various patches and additions (e.g Reiser4 in -am), but they're still tracking Linus' development. And occasionally those patches are accepted by Linus into his kernel tree. So "branch" is the more appropriate term. Imroy 08:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Architecture section of this article should actually go to Linux architecture. This will keep things in parallel with what the Architecture of the Windows NT operating system line article did. This page is evolving as more of a history of the Linux kernel, and its expansive architecture really deserves a page of its own. Any opinions? --Dirkbike 03:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what main article templates are for. --maru (talk) contribs 04:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know. The purpose of featuring an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain the feature for a week or so. The previous feature was KDE. Gronky 09:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Isnt the infobox a little strange, and the versions? Stable and unstable? How is that determined? Maybe should be Infobox_Software instead of Infobox_Software2?

From the Article:The B number denotes the major revision of the kernel. Even numbers indicate a stable release, i.e. one that is deemed fit for production use, such as 1.2, 2.4 or 2.6. Odd numbers have historically been development releases, such as 1.1 or 2.5. --Unixguy 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

have there been any major forks of the linux kernel?

Not in the schism sense like xmule/amule, XEmacs/RMSmacs. The word "fork" tends to carry this connotation, so I'm going to reword the article as per the above discussion to use "branch" but retain the fork article link. Chris Cunningham 10:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)