Talk:Linux kernel version history

Source of moved content

The content of the article "Linux kernel version history" has been moved from the previously existing article "Linux kernel".

• The source of the content can be found here: Linux kernel
• The content was pasted here: Linux kernel version history

It might be a good idea to consider the content of Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.

--Soluvo (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Merger

List of Linux kernel names should be merged into this page by adding one more column--Nngnna (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If we do that, I suggest putting a Template:clear before section "Releases before 2.6.0", which at least on my screen is getting crowded by the timeline box. In fact maybe we should do that anyway. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

SLTS wrong impression?

In the entry for the 4.4.220 kernel, the impression is given that CIP is guaranteeing SLTS until 2026, possibly 2036. Following the source link, it's not looking as if the CIP project were committing to anything yet, and the numbers 2026 and 2036 must have been derived from simply adding the lowest and highest realistic estimate, respectively, to the release date. 195.135.248.94 (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Order of shown version

Since the change which made the lists of versions < 5 shown by default, one has to scroll down pretty far until some relevant/current information is shown. Does anyone got some input regarding changing the order of the lists? E.g the > 5 at the top, 4, 3, 2.6, older. The order within the lists would stay the same. Just the order of the lists them self. I will implement this in ~2 weeks time if i don't get any comments back. GruensFroeschli (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Support model

I think the "support model" column is too verbose. It lists EOL versions but the left "version" column already shows EOL versions in red. Also the start of the supported times of all versions are in the "original release date" column. I think we should replace that column with an "EOL date" column and add a new "notes" column for extra bits of support information. The names can also go in the notes section I suppose? --Betseg (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• @GruensFroeschli: pinging you because you probably have the most edits on this page. --Betseg (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings regarding this. But you are right, the "Support Model" columns is currently more used as a "notes". GruensFroeschli (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Overlinking

Think this page suffers a bit from overlinking, we all know what a puppy and a brown bag is. Anybody wanna give a thumbs up to some cleaning? Dhalamh (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Which links would you propose to remove? The references for the releases? GruensFroeschli (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I think they meant stuff like "Named Charred Weasel", or "Named Psychotic Stoned Sheep" (which has 3 separate wikilinks) --Betseg (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I added links to Ubuntu and cleaned some links, from the table of Releases 5.x.y. I left some links that provide some cultural context -- Dròpol (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Those names are a little confusing if one does not realise that they are Ubuntu release names - Ubuntu is not Linux, just a very popular OS distribution with a Linux kernel - so the text needs to mention (each time, sadly) that it is the Ubuntu release name... SlySven (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

If you check the cited sources you will see that the names refer to the linux kernel and have nothing to do with Ubuntu. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

WHY no short summary for each version?

It would make sense for readers to see what these new releases were about. 5.18.242.22 (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

We're doing the timeline wrong (!) and article structure bad too

Major issue: Currently the timeline in the lead is grouped by the major version number. This is not how it should be done. Instead a new row of the timeline should begin with the release after the last LTS release and end with the next LTS release. As it stands, the LTS release duration is confusing shown to the reader and this is no way to resolve this.

Less major issue: The ordering of the article is confusing. The timeline increases downward by version number. The sections increase downward too but tables with each section increase upward. We are whipsawing the reader's brain here. Not sure how many page watchers are here but we need to pick consistent way: recent up higher OR recent down lower. After the timeline issue is fixed, we should then have a discussion to choose which way. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed about the timeline. Major version numbers have no significance, they are entirely arbitrary. This wasn't always the case but it is now. Looking at the timeline you would think that 5.4 LTS was replaced by 5.10 which was replaced by 5.15, and that 5.19 is the only currently supported LTS release in the 5.x series (since it's the only one that's blue). You would also think that 4.20, not 4.19, is LTS. Even once you realize that the labels apply to the black lines and not the colored areas it's still hard to interpret. That timeline is worse than useless and should be removed. I like your idea of having each row be a LTS. I'd have to see it, but it can't be any worse than what we have now. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Linux 6.0 newest version

Hi! I can't fix Linux 6.0 newest version, it's not 6.1 but 6.0.12. --HenriHa (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:IOS version history which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)