HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
torvalds
linux
C2010–2026
torvalds / linux

linux

Linux kernel source tree

742Distinct people
940Mentions
5Explicit recommenders
255.5KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Linux kernel source tree

GitHub

Where it is used

  • Ubuntu — Ubuntu uses the Linux kernel at the core of the operating system to manage and control hardware resources like I/O, memory, and CPU. Source
  • Android — Android uses the upstream Linux LTS kernel as the base of its Android kernel. Google then adds Android-specific patches to produce Android Common Kernels. Source
  • 1 more documented example

What people are saying

For critical applications, I for one would like to know the story behind a commit, preferably in the commit itself and not a reference to an external system like idk, Jira. My…

Cthulhu_ used a recommendation phrase. 5 indexed comments match. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 7:02:50 PM UTC.

GitHub Down Again? direct repository linkCritical

Users report that GitHub's official status page inaccurately claims all systems are operational while widespread 504 gateway timeouts and download failures disrupt CI/CD pipelines and software distribution. The conversation highlights significant frustration with the platform's reliability and transparency, leading to debates about migrating to self-hosted or alternative services like Codeberg.

57 readable replies · Supporting reply 1 · Supporting reply 2 · Supporting reply 3 · Supporting reply 4

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year940 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2010-07-15 18:39:05 UTC to 2026-10-29 13:46:22 UTC.

02550751002010-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments20102011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 13 mentions; 3 submissions, 10 comments2012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 24 mentions; 2 submissions, 22 comments2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 23 mentions; 5 submissions, 18 comments2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 31 mentions; 7 submissions, 24 comments2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 42 mentions; 4 submissions, 38 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 55 mentions; 9 submissions, 46 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 72 mentions; 8 submissions, 64 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 57 mentions; 8 submissions, 49 comments20182019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 66 mentions; 6 submissions, 60 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 80 mentions; 6 submissions, 74 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 91 mentions; 8 submissions, 83 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 104 mentions; 8 submissions, 96 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 76 mentions; 3 submissions, 73 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 76 mentions; 6 submissions, 70 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 72 mentions; 7 submissions, 65 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 57 mentions; 8 submissions, 49 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20102010-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20112011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC13310
20122012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC24222
20132013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC23518
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC31724
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC42438
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC55946
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC72864
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC57849
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC66660
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC80674
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC91883
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC104896
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC76373
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC76670
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC72765
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC57849

What Hacker News says

13 sources
(I work at GitHub.) Linus wrote into github support with some good and pointed feedback as well, most of which was related to email sent when a pull request is opened vs. what you might expect to see when someone submits a patch series to a mailing list. I assume this is what he's referring to with, "so from the pull request it's actually hard to see what somebody asks you to pull," in the quoted bit from the article. We have some changes lined up that we hope will address this. As for the quality of pull requests, it's unfortunate that a people took this as an opportunity to troll (https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/6). That will hopefully settle down once this is no longer "news". If not, we'll find a way to a address it. Lastly, it's worth noting that the linux-kernel mailing list -- where the majority of linux related development
Read the rest
and discussion happens -- is an open list (i.e. doesn't require subscribing / passing moderation to post). The ability for anyone to send a pull request to anyone at any time on GitHub is based somewhat on the success of open-list policies on projects like the kernel. While we're always looking for ways to help with trolls, the basic model isn't something we think needs to be "fixed".
In Linus Torvalds Comments About Github
For anyone pulling the kernel tree from github - here is how you can verify it. linux-2.6 $ git pull git://github.com/torvalds/linux.git linux-2.6 $ git fetch --tags git://github.com/torvalds/linux.git linux-2.6 $ gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 76E21CBB linux-2.6 $ git verify-tag v3.1-rc5 gpg: Signature made Sun 04 Sep 2011 06:45:37 PM EDT using DSA key ID 76E21CBB gpg: Good signature from "Linus Torvalds (tag signing key) <torvalds@osdl.org>"
In Linux is now hosted on GitHub
I've never hand bandwidth trouble with either github or google code. With SF I get an arcane 2001-Era dialog where I choose from 12 options that don't tell me anything - just imagine what this is like for an normal end user. In any case, bandwith and storage cost falls faster than executable sizes grow, so in a few years this will be a non-issue for competitors even if you assume that it is an issue at the moment. Edit: Githubs download expierience: https://github.com/mirrors/linux-2.6, click on downloads in upper left corner, click 3.0-rc1, downloading 115mb and my bandwidth is saturated at 2MB/s.
In GitHub, Collaboration, and Haters

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.