mic_none

Talk:Linux kernel/Archive 3 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linux_kernel/Archive_3

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Linux kernel/Archive currently Supported binary formats *not for spam*

Inconsistent title

Since the article is named "Linux kernel", shouldn't it start with "The Linux kernel..."? - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Willingness to start an edit war?

I just want to bring it to the attention of the serious and regular editors of this page that user:KimDabelsteinPetersen is lately doing reverts that are not completely justified and that seem to show that he (or she?) is willing to start an edit war. His/her only actions are to revert edits without offering any constructive alternative. Calling other editors contributions "non-sense" shows that user's antagonizing attitude. It is quite obvious that she is a devoted fan of overusing the word Linux to name everything from her "famous" embedded systems to desktop operating systems but she should restrain her obsession to put the word "Linux" in every other sentence. It makes articles lose quality and objectivity.
--Grandscribe (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please desist with the personal attacks. I find your contributions good... but not the insistance on pushing your POV on GNU. The Linux kernel runs on all sorts of systems - in the (paraphrased) words of IBM: From wristwatches to super-computers. Only a subset of these use/require GNU for anything, as you well know [1][2], from very long discussions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Kim. I am not attacking you personally. If I give you that impression then excuse me.I do not necessarily search to push my point of view. I try to find the most accurate and neutral description for the different topics explained in the articles. I have no problem to use the name Linux when I am referring to that part of the system. When referring to other components they should be called by the names they have which, as a matter of fact, are not only GNU or only Linux. When we clearly make a reference to how operating systems distributions as used in personal computers are called it makes sense to show the reader the different alternative names. It does not mean favoring one over the other which is exactly what you seem to do when you constantly remove alternative names to show ONLY the term you sympathize with. That is all. No personal attacks meant. And Happy New Year 2009! --Grandscribe (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Its actually very simple - when referencing to other articles, you use the most common naming form, that encompasses what you want to describe. Mixing other things into it, is unnecessary and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand ... you go in-depth on the target article, not in the linking articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Version number

I think there is a problem with the version number in the infobox OS template of this article and the Linux article, both indicate that the latest version is 2.6.2x, so we have to change both articles to update to the latest kernel version every time the kernel updates. We should use only _one_ template.

There is already one in this article Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Linux_kernel that is not in use, but Linux has another Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Linux. I think it's better if we use this one of Linux kernel because it is about the kernel. And in the article Linux use the template to bring the information from Linux Kernel. So this would be like Kernel {{Latest stable software release/Linux kernel}}. --KDesk (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

To go a little farther… since "Linux" here is not the kernel but the OS, the Linux article should not even specify a version. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've untangled the mess with all these templates:

Please see Talk:Linux#Version number for details.
--Tothwolf (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

coLinux screenshot

Per the discussion at Talk:Linux#Constant removal of Linux on Windows image, there is some question whether the use of a non-free image is justified here. Yworo (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

History

"In July 2009 Microsoft contributed 20,000 lines of code to the Linux kernel...". Oh, come on! How could a small contribution by Microsoft possibly be notable in the 18-year history of Linux? This seems important at the moment, but unless someone complains, I'm going to remove this bit of trivia, or move it somewhere else, in a day or two. -- Tim Bird (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is one of the most significant events in the history of the kernel - a non-trivial and involuntary contribution by Linux's largest competitor, a company that has carried out a major FUD campaign against Linux, plus the code is licenced under GPL, which Microsoft has been opposed to in the past. If you want to see more refs added to this to show notability they are easily available, including quotes from Linus Torvalds on the event. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ahunt, this is significant. There have recently been numerous news articles on the topic. It's clearly notable. Yworo (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, wasn't Microsoft obligated to release this code under the terms of the GPL, since they were releasing it as part of their virtualization software? --FOo (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It was either that or get sued, as the article explains! - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
First: why is it notable that Microsoft made a mistake and then had to correct it by opening the driver? It does not say anything about Microsofts attitudes or future behaviour towards linux and more importantly, they just had to open it if they wanted to keep using it. I strongly believe this is not worthy of a mention in "The short history of Linux"
Second: Even if a short mention was in order, the current one has totally unnecessary commentary and too much detail. 62.78.167.76 (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
See above, this is extremely notable, on par with say General Motors installing Ford engines in their cars or similar. This has received significant press coverage in both the technical and general media, more so than any other kernel story in a number of years. It seems that the only organization that thinks it is not important is Microsoft, who have been trying to play it down in the press. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I absolute agree that this is notable, but putting it in the current History section gives it undue weight. It makes it sound like it's a milestone in the Linux kernel's history, which it's not, compared to the rest of the section (which is fairly brief). It would be appropriate in a section or article about who writes the Linux kernel. The section could start out by listing some of the major contributors like Red Hat/Novell/Intel, and then mention Microsoft at the end. It should be pretty easy to write up two paragraphs based on lwn.net's figures for kernel contributions to put MS's contribution in perspective. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I love Linux, but the whole Microsoft bit reads like it was written by a Linux fanboy. It has quite a sarcastic tone to it. Wjl72 (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is the discussion in support of the tags added? Incidentally I have removed the whole article POV tag as no justification was given for it and formatted the section tag properly. In reading the section the first paragraph seems to be entirely factual, neutral and well supported by many refs. Its current wording is also subject to consensus as worked out on this talk page. The second paragraph could be better worded, although it is also factually supported by refs as well. So I will work on rewording it to achieve a more neutral tone and commenters can see what they think. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, lacking any further objections after this text was fixed, I have removed the tag. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Date of the first Linux announcement on newsgroups: this article lists August 26th, 1991. However the original newsgroup posting was made on 25 Aug 1991 at 20:57:08 GMT. Even taking into account the Helsinki time zone, the announcement still came on August 25th in Torvald's local time zone. I made an edit back in February (23 Feb 2011, revision 415444256) to correct this date, however my edit was revised by an editor who cited reference [1], which attached an arbitrary, post-dated time stamp of Aug 26 1991, 2:12 am to the posting. Note that if you click on "More options" next to the time stamp in that source, you can see the full header information which includes the correct time stamp of 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT. Also, several other sources on the web [2] [3] and even Wikiquote [4] list the correct date of August 25th, 1991. Yebellz (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As of 2011 the Linux 3.2 release had 11,430,712 lines of code. -- may be an interesting bit of trivia, but 3.2 wasn't released in 2011, it was Jan 4th, 2012. I don't want to just fix the year without verifying the SLoC number. 69.47.84.165 (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

debugfs? where?

debugfs redirects to here but the entire page fails to mention "debugfs" at all. Please fix, either way. 80.57.70.243 (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the redirect page should point somewhere else, but where? - Ahunt (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe the poster above is talking about Debugfs (Linux kernel)Debugfs (Linux kernel) [3] which was redirected to Linux kernel but not merged. Given the coverage I see with Google, this topic probably should have a standalone article. There is also Debugfs [4] which was redirected to e2fsprogs by the same individual. These should probably be merged and expanded as Debugfs with Debugfs (Linux kernel) redirected to Debugfs to satisfy the attribution requirements which are covered in Help:Merging. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
That approach makes sense to me, but I think the task needs to be taken on by someone with the technical expertise in the subject to ensure the resulting article makes sense. Definitely out of my depth in this field! - Ahunt (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Two column reflist vs 30em reflist

I notice that {{reflist|2}} was changed to {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} by User:Bender235. It is probably worth noting that both configurations fail W3C validation and totally standards compliant (ie Acid 3) browsers such as Google Chrome render these as a single column regardless. Some browsers, like Firefox and Epiphany mange to make sense of the invalid CSS and show them as two column, but I really think the wiki CSS coding needs to be fixed before we spend a whole bunch of time switching one set of non-compliant CSS coding for another bunch of non-compliant CSS coding. Perhaps this should be taken higher, but I am note sure where that should be reported. - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Contributions

Looking at the contents box, the first thing you see is "Microsoft Contributions". That is terribly misleading, and politically incorrect in some fashion: Microsoft has been fighting Linux with patent lawsuits and such for as long as it has been around. Other companies have contributed possibly millions of lines of code (e.g. Red Hat, IBM...), so it appears to me they may be more deserving of the seat of honour (Let it be noted, I'm no Linux fanboy. I'm suggesting this as an improvement to presentation). --cc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.53.183 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough point - fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The whole Microsoft section is written very childishly near the end. Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing your hate for Microsoft and this section should be rewritten in a more neutral tone. Rukaribe (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it was; heck nearly half this talk page is about it. I decided to finally clean it up, especially due to the massive undue weight issues. Ryan Norton 00:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Proprietary binary blobs

"GNU General Public License version 2 (GPLv2),[4] plus proprietary licenses for some controversial binary blobs," Actually, all of the Linux kernel is released under the GPLv2, including the binary blobs. Whether they're proprietary or not is debatable, but they're definitely released under the GPL. If you don't agree, please cite the "proprietary licenses" that are used for these binary blobs. 131.251.151.54 (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

While the binary blobs are not under the GPL, they are (to the best of my knowledge) simply firmware that could otherwise be held by memory on hardware, much like a BIOS. Binary blobs are loaded onto hardware by the kernel's firmware loader, not executed by the CPU. Even distros that are fairly strict on software freedom, such as Debian and Fedora, accept the blobs because they are functionally equivalent to firmware stored on the hardware after initialization. If no one objects, I will change it in a couple days. Bizzako (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The binary blobs are distributed as software and with software, and they are a work covered by the copyright law, right? And we know that relevant people have had issues with their licensing, such as not actually knowing their license, right? If we know that, then it's fair to say that the link to the blob article should stay next to the link to the GPL. We can avoid the adjective "proprietary", but we shouldn't pretend that they are all GPL.
FYI Debian accepts and re-distributes the blobs, but it clearly separates and marks them, in the firmware-linux-nonfree package, and it specifically enumerates their (non-GPL) licenses, see firmware-linux-nonfree copyright file. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There's also some explicitly free firwmare, in Debian in the firmware-linux-free package, and most of it is GPL except for one part, see firmware-linux-free.copyright. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
"Binary blob" is somewhat ambiguous and pejorative, as its article says it doesn't usually apply to firmware. What if we revise it to "The Linux kernel is released under the GNU General Public License, with some proprietary firmware images included."? Bizzako (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that "proprietary firmware" is more neutral than "binary blogs". - Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
But that's not actually true, because the article binary blob distinguishes between "binary blob" and "firmware image". Please fix that first. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to uninstall those proprietary blobs from the Linux kernel in distros like Debian, Arch Linux, Gentoo, etc, if the user don't want them installed or if the hardware does not require them? Also, has there been reverse engineering efforts to supplant those blobs with FOSS code? (Similar to what nouveau people are doing with the nvidia blob) -- Diego.viola (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


—Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

Microsoft had termed Linux a "cancer" and "communist"

If you're going have that quote in a Wikipedia article you need a much more authoratative source than an off-hand remark on a blog-like web site that features ads, "I GOT RIPPED IN 4 WEEKS!". It may well be that some Microsoft employees have made remarks like that (and I'm damn sure Linux fans have made much worse remarks about Microsoft), but I very much doubt it was ever official Microsoft policy, and until that is proven with authoratative references I'm willing to take this dispute to Wikipedia dispute resolution. --RenniePet (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to make threats, try WP:AGF instead. Let me see if I can source that more authoritatively. Incidentally under WP:BRD you made a bold change, were reverted, at that point you should have brought it here to discuss and to gain consensus before removing that text a second time. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
OK. Did not intentionally violate that rule, was unaware of it - and don't really think my change was very "bold". What I think is more interesting is what the current status of those drivers is. Are they still in Linux kernel or have they been tossed? That's more important than the name-calling. --RenniePet (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I realize that you are new here and we need new editors for a fresh point of view. Give me a bit of time to see if I can come up with some better sources on that. - Ahunt (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay I have found out that there are literally tens of thousands of sources for the quotes. Here are just three from reliable sources MS' Ballmer: Linux is communism, Ballmer: “Linux is a cancer”, Two tribes: Google and China. It seems that both quotes were made by Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft in public announcements and therefore is an official company position. In 2000 he said of Linux "And it had, you know, the characteristics of communism" and in 2001 he said "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches". Now that we have very reliable sources for these quotes I propose that they be added back in with the refs. I think it very clearly puts the Microsoft kernel contributions into perspective and is extremely germane to this subject. - Ahunt (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
A fuller quote by Ballmer is

Linux is a tough competitor. There's no company called Linux, there's barely a Linux road map. Yet Linux sort of springs organically from the earth. And it had, you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it. That is, it's free.

Paraphrasing this as "Linux is communist" is certainly non-neutral. Although he does use the word "communism", the quote overall is relatively positive toward Linux, while the proposed paraphrase is drastically negative. The Register article on the cancer quote is a secondary source, apparently an editorial rather than a news article, and it doesn't give the full context, so I wouldn't cite it either.

To give context, I think it would be better to emphasize how much Linux competes with Microsoft, and how much effort Microsoft has expended on trying to undercut it and drive it into the ground. Single-word quotes of Microsoft's CEO are not particularly informative – actions speak much louder than words. That MS has made hostile statements about its competitors really tells the reader nothing at all, since any company will denigrate its competitors. This is even if it would be neutral to paraphrase Ballmer that way, which it's not. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Having been proven wrong, I'll withdraw from this debate, except to say that I don't think that it is Wikipedia's job to analyze people's or company's motives. Just present the facts. I'll also mention that this situation is by no means the first time Microsoft has been involved in open source software - take WiX for example, which became open source in 2004. --RenniePet (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My aim in including these quotes was to show how unusual and significant it was that Microsoft was contributing to the Linux kernel by illustrating past antagonistic statements that the company has made. If you can find a better way to express that then fine. Incidentally now that I had both Ballmer quotes I was going to do a better job of phrasing them correctly than the original ref had done so. - Ahunt (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay lacking any further objections, let me add in the text and refs and all can then have a look at it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, I said I'd go away, but here's (another?) last comment: I don't really see the need or desirability of including these comments of Steve Ballmer in the article. The comments were eight years prior to the events they're being linked to, and eight years is a long time in the IT business. Steve Ballmer talks a lot and says a lot of dumb things sometimes. It's not really all that notable in this context. Another factor is that Microsoft did not release these drivers to help Linux, they did it to help Hyper-V and Windows Server 2008, knowing that without these drivers some companies would choose other virtual machine software instead of Hyper-V.

That's my opinion, but I'm no longer "threatening" to go to Wikipedia dispute resolution. I'll try to do what I said I'd do, and withdraw from this debate. --RenniePet (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is totally off-topic, except that it mentions Steve Ballmer: http://www.codeproject.com/Lounge.aspx?msg=3260757#xx3260757xx
--RenniePet (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Kernel Panic

Why is 'Kernel Panic' listed as a prominent feature of the Linux kernel architecture? Is this a joke by the FreeBSD fans? ;-) Jonabbey (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh. ;-) --Demonkoryu (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hyper-V drivers

Though I like to see my name in Wikipedia, the Hyper-V portion of this page is out of place and is really flame bait. It doesn't belong in this article. Suggest adding more to the History section that covers the contributions of corporations to Linux kernel (SGI, IBM, and Microsoft). The discussion of the Hyper-V driver news story should be moved to Hyper-V page. Shemminger (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

An honour to hear from you on this subject! It wasn't so much the Hyper-V drivers themselves, it could have been any code, but the fact that Microsoft was forced to contribute to the Linux kernel to avoid legal problems. See several subjects on this page above for more debate on this subject. - Ahunt (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph (as written) doesn't belong in the section where it is. Since it is a minor tempest in a teapot compared to SCO and other challenges. Also, the in/out discussion is so transient in nature, that it really doesn't belong there either. How about a section on Corporate contributions, including reference to lwn (jcorbet) statistics on who contributes to the Linux kernel. 

 http://lwn.net/Articles/373405/

Shemminger (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that someone knowledgeable seriously needs to clean up the area of "Microsoft Contributions". Just reading the linked sources I'm not sure Microsoft was forced to GPL its drivers - read the comments on the linked blog. This idea is based on one person's blog/opinion (not even a legal opinion), and even the fellow responsible for that opinion doesn't think it belongs on this page (see above). Also, 2.6.35 has been released and the drivers are still there, and version 2.1 of the drivers were also just released apparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.122.82 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the best logo to use would be NewTux.svg, because it just looks more modern than the regular Tux logo. Is this fine with everyone? I edited it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.141.110 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been debated in the past on several Linux articles and the consensus has been to use the official Tux. - Ahunt (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ballmer quotes

Are indeed taken out of context; somehow "the characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it. That is, it's free." got turned into simply "the characteristics of communism". Ditto for "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches," being cut to simply "Linux is a cancer". This kind of context is important for the reader, even if one turns a blind eye to the fact that it's near-complete misrepresentation and such things as NPOV (because you are cutting out microsoft's views on the subject while cherrypicking just the other side). Also, the inline cites for the paragraph are done incorrectly. Ryan Norton 02:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it only really needs the cancer quote anyway..... the other is almost offtopic. Ryan Norton 02:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Well if it bothers you let's use the full quotes. They are included to put the kernel contributions into context, as we have debated before. - Ahunt (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks (well, one is still out of context, but w/e). The only thing that bothers me is that it takes up about a quarter of a of the history section - which in itself is supposed to be a summary of another article; the top contributors are intel/IBM/redhat/randoms. Yet, here we are spending all this time talking about a single event about someone who has basically contributed _nothing_, basically becoming a undue weight issue. Ryan Norton 18:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the key thing there is the rest of the history needs expanding. The main problem with this type of topic is that the day-to-day activities of building a kernel don't get much press. - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger of vmsplice() local root exploit into this article

Looks like User:Joy has done this, so I have redirected the merge-to article and removed the tag in this article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/msg/b813d52cbc5a044b
  2. ^ http://www.thelinuxdaily.com/2010/04/the-first-linux-announcement-from-linus-torvalds/
  3. ^ http://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/article/twenty-years-linux-according-linus-torvalds
  4. ^ http://en.wikiquote.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Linus_Torvalds