Talk:Linux kernel/Archive 1

message: 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:
 for NetBSD and  for Linux. It certainly seems that NetBSD "wins" in number of ports. Does anybody has better references? --Sander123 13:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Who has the most ports? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Fork vs. Branch 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's what main article templates are for. --maru  (talk) contribs 04:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux Kernel Architecture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  On [[Portal:Free software]], Linux kernel is currently the featured article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  forks