Talk:Kernel/2013

XNU?
Isn't it XNU Kernel, not Darwin? Darwin was the name of the Operating System the last I knew of. --Jacob 22:57, 3 September 2011 (MDT)
 * Yep. Fixed. beej 15:51, 7 September 2011 (MDT)

Version List
AFAIK, the kernel version used in the iPad 4 (3G) and iPad mini (3G) use a different version **number** (and build date), although I may be wrong. Because of this, I think we should split it up by device. If we can't do that, I would like to do something about the variations in application processor. Maybe splitting up by revisions (S5L8720, S5L8920, etc.) or replacing it with something like  (  for ones that the N72AP use). I personally don't like the second option as the 's aren't really in the build string. For the first option, maybe something along the lines of: (obviously split up by major releases). This might work because, for example, with S5L8900, that's 3 devices put into one column, and 5 devices for A4 in one, as opposed to Firmware Keys where each device has it own column. Any thoughts? --5urd 15:53, 22 November 2012 (MST)
 * This is the Kernel page. I don't see any reason to introduce device-specific lists here unless absolutely necessary. Even if some identifier string is different, that's not reason enough. --http 06:15, 23 November 2012 (MST)
 * I am not necessarly against device specific lists, but the version list is far from being 'complete' yet. So I think this shall be done first. --M2m 19:32, 23 November 2012 (MST)
 * Is this list even needed? What use is listing them? --iAdam1n (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * History :) --M2m (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Meh. I suppose if I get free time I will add some of the missing ones. --iAdam1n (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Finding the version of kernel
How do you find the kernel version? --iAdam1n (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Either "uname -a" in terminal of a JB'ed device. Or as part of the Diagnostics & Usage Data (Latest Crash, LowMemory, etc).--M2m (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah ok thanks. --iAdam1n (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

RELEASE_ARM
I was wondering, could we remove the RELEASE_ARM as it does vary by processor and can be vey confusing? If so I am willing to remove it. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the complete string as it appears should be listed. We don't need a link on the processor though. --http (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So do you mean delete processor but keep RELEASE_ARM at the end? --iAdam1n (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, just the link, not any text. --http (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Example please. --iAdam1n (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Is the processor really needed though as it just makes it harder to detect? --iAdam1n (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe an earlier discussion covered this somewhat. I'm against removing it as then the string is not the exact string that would be produced by the device. For someone writing a tool to parse the strings, it should be pretty obvious that the RELEASE_ARM part varies between processors. --5urd (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)