How stable is Linux 5, beacuse the company I work for wants me to build a course on Linux 5 administration 👀👀👀

🤔 I havent seen any pre releases for 5.0 but I also havent been looking

@tokumei it is a serious matter, they want me to do this and they don't want 4.20 stable versions 😞

Fools...

@netikras are they ????😅😅😅

@Nakamura09 yes they are. I would never recommend anyone to start using latest version of any sw right after its release. It's too expensive, it's too risky and there's no legitimate reason to upgrade [I assume].

I would only recommend the opposite: run any but the latest version

@netikras that is what I intend on doing. They are non-tech dudes with no IT backgrounds😅😅😅

Told ya mate, Packt management guys are idiots for wanting to use Linux 5.0 in their course XD but yes generally rc releases are stable enough for beta-oriented use from rc3 onwards. Not for courses though 😅

@Condor true I told Muddasar also that

@faheel that I know of bro😁

@metamourge came here to comment exactly this lol

@RememberMe 😁😁😁

@Haxk20 thanks for the update bro.

I'm reading this.

Seriously.

And thinking... wtf?!?

Linux is not an OS.... And if Linux is meant from a Kernel perspective... Do u want to support all Hardware possible?

@IntrusionCM Linux is an OS, GNU isn't required at all to make it run. The only thing a compiled Linux needs is an init. And compiling can be done using musl. Linux, along with its minimal requirements to keep it from kernel panicking, is a full operating system. Not a very usable one, hence all the further software that leverages it, but an operating system nonetheless.

@IntrusionCM as for compiling it, I haven't tested this myself but musl should theoretically be able to replace glibc and GCC.

Which leads me to my conclusion: Stallman's desire to have GNU included in the name Linux is ridiculous. Sure he's done a significant amount of work on the GNU userspace, but at the end of the day, does that warrant naming the OS after yourself? No! Because it's not an integral required part of the OS and it's just a fucking name!!

Now I do feel like Stallman should have a leverage in naming the OS - that is, if it weren't named already. GNU does play a significant role in server Linux, as well as some embedded systems (despite glibc being quite bloated). And there's no denying that GCC is an extremely powerful utility that powers most of the Linux ecosystem.

That being said, I think that in order to make Linux more appealing to the desktop market (which a lot of users seem to care about) we should make the name Linux an easy to pronounce one. And GNU/Linux ain't one of them.

@Condor

Linux is an OS core. Exactly as u described.

But it is not an OS.

And yes. The Linux kernel has not a stable API.

But in - nearly - all cases for regular usage this is irrelevant as long as the kernel provides an driver for all devices and has no regressions.

LTS guarantees a stable API for a period of time - but it doesn't guarantee to be regression free.

So... Back to topic.

Why focus on the kernel 5.0 as if it really matters If Most of the stuff that really matters should be in the OS?

Condor we posted at nearly the same time.

I didn't intend to be GNU specific. Rather the question why 5,0 matters....

OS never means GNU to me.

Heck. You can append to the kernel Parameter Line every init Command you want...

@IntrusionCM Linux 5.0 is reasonably stable at this point, although I wouldn't recommend it for course material as stated earlier. It is however a complete and functional operating system when coupled with e.g. BusyBox' /bin/sh for an init. Not a very useful one, but in terms of a PoC, most certainly a considerable one.

@IntrusionCM oh, I see.. we're on the same line then. 5.0's been bugging me as well. It's apparently a naming convention that Packt's management people decided to use.. no idea why, but it seems weird to me as well.

Well... As there is No stable ApI and Linus Torvalds gets pretty pissed about the kernel breaking userspace....

Versioning is irrelevant.

Linux is the kernel✌

@IntrusionCM an os, by definition, is a software acting as an api to the hardware. It communicates directly to the hardware via built-in drivers, pluggable drivers, hadcoded calls, etc. An os abstracts hardware for applucations and exposes its own api to them. Please correct me if I'm wrong but Linux does exactly that. The kernel. The core.
The shell wrapping that core consumes kernels' api defined in headers. And all the [gnu or non-gnu] applications either consume the same api or the shell.

Not a single application has an ability to communicate to the hardware directly. Every call to the hardware must be done via kernel's api [yes, including gpio calls].

So in what way isn't linux an os?

@netikras Linux is an OS to me I approve and acceot what your saying fam, dont forget the gnome 😁✌

@Nakamura09 what does gnome have to to with any of this?

@netikras just mentioned that dude

@netikras Condor said it.
The kernel is useless without at least busybox. You need to have a init command or something else that "takes over" after the kernel finished initializing. Every initrd, for example, contains the most basic tools to provide an environment for the kernel. Busybox is most common - Shell, Kernel Utils (e.g. modprobe), device fs setup (mdev for example) and so on are absolute necessary.

Yes. Kernel is the OS core. But it's not an OS.

@IntrusionCM you're right. I should not get into discussions before my mirning coffee :(

@Netikras Everythings fine. :)

@netikras good you know LoL