Talk:List of Linux kernel names
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Linux kernel names redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Size
editDoes anyone have how many megabytes each kernel was (can come up with a standard way of comparing the size of each kernel)? And the date each kernel was released:
It could be helpful to track the size over time. 24.155.23.75 (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- getting the source code size and release date of post-2.6.12-rc1 kernels should be easy with git. --84.60.201.49 (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Merge with Linux Kernel
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was no consensus. MartinZ02 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the merge proposal is fair. This is a nice tidbit of information but probably does not deserve its own article. If you have a different opinion please speak up.
Muzzle (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. The kernel article is already long enough. Greenman (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add dates to future entries
editPlease add dates to future entries. It will make the table more valuable. Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Seconded. I just came here to request that. I suggest an added column for the purpose. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
More valuable? Seriously? This is a junk article..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.46.110 (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Original research
editUnless this list is published elsewhere (perhaps in parts) besides git, it's original research. -- ke4roh (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Anybody can easily check the info in git. What is the problem? Thue | talk 18:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- The git repository is a primary source. Atomice (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh no! That only holds water if it's something "soft" like opinions, not data. Data is data. draeath (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy requires an educated person, with no specialist knowledge, to be able to verify, in this case, the names and version numbers. I would argue that the data here (the git repository) requires an expert to interpret it (you have to understand DVCS, git, revisions, branching, software versioning, the Linux Makefile, the Linux release process, etc.). Atomice (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- You make it sound like it requires a PhD to do that. In reality, you just have to go to [1], and then click the commitdiff links. An expert may be able to do it smarter, but it is very easy to verify for anybody. And there is no branches to worry about, since we only care about the single master branch (which I linked). Thue | talk 21:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Once you start talking about commitdiffs and single master branches you have moved out of layman territory already. Atomice (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the average person on the street could not do that. But neither could the average person verify our article on Quantum mechanics; yet we also don't delete that article. This article can be verified by anybody with a fair understanding of software development, which is think is a fair prerequisite for editing or criticising this article; there are thousands of Wikipedians with the knowledge to verify this article, and the data is unambigous to those capable of reading it - you can ask any of them for a second opinion. Thue | talk 17:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Great article, now I know my router runs a Zonked Quokka! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.214.7 (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the average person on the street could not do that. But neither could the average person verify our article on Quantum mechanics; yet we also don't delete that article. This article can be verified by anybody with a fair understanding of software development, which is think is a fair prerequisite for editing or criticising this article; there are thousands of Wikipedians with the knowledge to verify this article, and the data is unambigous to those capable of reading it - you can ask any of them for a second opinion. Thue | talk 17:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Once you start talking about commitdiffs and single master branches you have moved out of layman territory already. Atomice (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- You make it sound like it requires a PhD to do that. In reality, you just have to go to [1], and then click the commitdiff links. An expert may be able to do it smarter, but it is very easy to verify for anybody. And there is no branches to worry about, since we only care about the single master branch (which I linked). Thue | talk 21:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy requires an educated person, with no specialist knowledge, to be able to verify, in this case, the names and version numbers. I would argue that the data here (the git repository) requires an expert to interpret it (you have to understand DVCS, git, revisions, branching, software versioning, the Linux Makefile, the Linux release process, etc.). Atomice (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh no! That only holds water if it's something "soft" like opinions, not data. Data is data. draeath (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is this a Stub?
editI understand this list doesn't contain all of the information ever about all of the linux kernels, but it enumerates exactly what the title says it does, a list of the Linux kernel names. Hamalnamal (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)