Talk:Linux kernel/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Kernel 3.19 released

Resolved

 – 3.19 is present in the release table, with the link mentioned below being used as a source

This needs to be added to the table of releases. As per [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.204.7 (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect description of trademark litigation

@Fabio Maria De Francesco:A recent edit by user:Fabio Maria De Francesco described as Trademark: Shortened this section. Removed unnecessary historical details, not only shortened the section but incorrectly altered its meaning. There was no copyright infringement by a third party but rather a fraudulent trademark application by Della Croce and claims by him of trademark infringement. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chatul:

Thanks a lot for reverting incorrect information.

What do you think about shortening that section while preserving "fraudulent trademark application by a third party and claims by the same of trademark infringement"?

If you agree I would write: "A legal battle, started for a fraudulent trademark application by a third party that was not even in the least involved in the development of Linux and claims by the same one of trademark infringement, ended in August 1997 when the trademark was definitively awarded to Mr. Torvalds.".

Please, let me know what you think about it and please remind that shortening unnecessary historical and obsolete details makes space for more technical topics. Regards, Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks perfect. You might consider retaining these citations and the name William Della Croce, Jr. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Linux kernel - Introduction

I've just reverted the introduction of the article. The Linux kernel is a very technical and specialized topic, it has a complex architecture and a lot of advanced features. The editor who reverted this leader to the May 2020 old state misunderstands WP:TECHNICAL. Even just "Kernel (operating system)" is. Very few people lacking proper Computer science background are able to understand such a topic, especially the Linux kernel (compared to toy kernels intended for educational purposes) that is very complex even for undergraduates in computer science and computer engineer.

Furthermore, this article is watched by more than 1400 people (see stats), read by approximately 50,000 people per month, and during these months nobody has objected to my numerous edits of the leader. Before doing a mass reversion of a series of (reviewed and accepted) edits, with four months of delay from the first one, a little discussion on this talk page would have been appreciated.

Please read the following excerpt from WP:EXPLAINLEAD: "For highly specialized topics where it is difficult to give an overview in terms with which a general audience will be familiar, it may be reasonable to assume some background knowledge in the lead while linking to the prerequisites required to understand it.". This introduction has tens of links to WP article and external sources.

This is from the WP:OVERSIMPLIFY: "It is important not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable. Encyclopedia articles should not "tell lies to children" in the sense of giving readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when they don't.". Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to read what other contributors think about it. "Things must be simple, but not simpler" said someone wiser than me. Why "monolithic" is for a larger audience than "modular"? Why "[It] is configurable" and "[S]ystem administrators can tailor it for their targets and usage scenarios" are concepts so complex and overly technical so that they must be removed? Why we need a long list of embedded devices in the leader? I assume that people interested in Linux know what embedded devices are, am I wrong?

If someone else thinks the leader is too complex, please discuss here this potential issue or be bold and edit the specific phrases and words. The actual leader is the result of tens of edits, each provided with its summary. I think that a mass reversion of a lot of edits (I must stress that each has its own summary) is unjustified and that it is a bad way to contribute. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote above, this article is intended for postgraduate readers. Please read WP:ONEDOWN. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It seemed to me that the introduction had slowly become more and more technical with the past months. The previous introduction was in my view more clear, flowed better, and gave more context. Currently sentence number two says using one of the make *config commands. The Linux kernel is not a specialized topic, being in such widespread use and with so many 13 year olds playing with it. As WP:ONEDOWN mentions: the lead section should be particularly understandable. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Þjarkur:

I'm going to move some of the most technical topics in the body of the article. However, I need some time to do that. I'll start to move part the sentence about the make *config commands. Perhaps more details can also be moved in the body.

Where I absolutely don't agree with you is massive reverting of tens of edits with one sponge swipe. My style of contributing is splitting information in a series of short edits. Please, in the future, I'd like that you revert a single edit per time or that you discuss massive reversion here before acting.

Furthermore, you wrote you play with Linux but it's not clear whether you're talking of the kernel itself, its architecture, its source code, driver's code, and so on, or you're a user of Linux OSs (distribution). I'm a software engineer and I can assure you that most of my colleagues cannot "play" with it. Most users don't even know what a generic kernel is, they just know (something) about the role of the operating systems in a system (i.e., not more than "for a user program to run an operating system is needed"). If laymen want to understand the Linux kernel article, they should start with reading other WP articles in order (Operating system, Kernel, Linux)

Thanks for your kind reply and for the interest you showed about this article. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

A single edit added 37k byte of redundant information

The edit made by PianistHere added 37k characters to the article (inflating it from 139k to 177k bytes). These are only links to archived pages of the live citations that were already there and are still there. According to xtools, now he/she is the second contributor to the Linux kernel article with just one huge edit. I've made more than 270 edits, adding a lot of (mostly technical) information - like other contributors do or have done in the past - just to see xtools authorship statistics completely messed up (I think my hard work should be acknowledged, am I wrong?). Was that edit really necessary? Did Wikipedia need it? I think it should be reverted, however I'd like to read what other contributors think about it before taking any action. Thanks, Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I see why take a great pride in the page statistics. Over time, you have made many important improvements to this page. Unfortunately, those stats are not an argument in including or removing content on the Wikipedia article. Even though those references are alive, there is nothing wrong in adding archive links. It prevents link rot and overall is a good practice. Authorship statistics do not determine who made the most important edits. You are still the owner of the edits you have made. It's just a pie chart. – K4rolB (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Your response made me realize that I'm screaming like a kid that someone took away their beautiful toy from. Just as you wrote, I was proud to be able to easily prove that I contributed about 40% of such an important article that is consulted on average 45k times a month. However, I understand that my attitude is not constructive and may not be in the interest of the Wikipedia community. While we're at it, I want to say thank you for appreciating the work done so far and I assure you that I still have a lot to add. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Add the Zen Kernel

I want to leave a quick mention that this article might be the best place to mention the Zen kernel. Someone with more knowledge might want to consider adding it. The following links are meant for clarification and I'm aware that they aren't suited as source:

• https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Kernel#Officially_supported_kernels
• https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/603142/what-is-the-zen-kernel
• https://www.linuxfordevices.com/tutorials/linux/linux-kernels
• https://github.com/zen-kernel/zen-kernel GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

main Language C89 --> moves to C11

I'm missing something in the article. The main programming language of the kernel is (ancient) C89. Linus choose to move to C11 cause of problems with a patch. Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/ -- LAZA74 (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, your statement is (mostly) true. Linux proposed to switch to C98 (not C11 - I recall the problem that had to be addressed and I'm pretty sure that C98 would suffice to effectively fix it; also, if I recall the exact words written by Mr.Torvalds, his proposal is to enable the --std=gnu98 compiler's option). But for now the debate is still open and I'm currently following the debate. I agree with him but unfortunately, is not only up to him. We should consider a lot of technical issues and most "arch" and other core parts maintainers need to reach btoad consensus before doing that switch. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)