Talk:Linux kernel/Archive 8

@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^[1][2][3] citations and the name William Della Croce, Jr. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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^[1], 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)

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)

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)

@185.217.158.63: We're in an edit war, let's talk before reverting more edits (and adding more GNU propaganda).

Per my edit summary, no, you don't need GNU utilities to run a program from the Linux kernel, you just need a virtual terminal manager (like getty (Unix)), and a shell (like Bourne shell). Betseg (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Your claim that needing an OS to run programs is "GNU propaganda" is ridiculous.

I never claimed that one "need[s] GNU utilities to run a program from the Linux kernel", I am correcting the article to state that applications were run on the combination of the GNU operating system and the Linux kernel, which is factually correct and what actually happened.

Sure, you can use another OS, but what actually happened was that Linux was combined with the larger GNU system and by doing so filled in the last gap to make a 100% free OS at the time.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way, you need a **lot** more than a kernel, getty, and shell to get an OS running. The GNU Project has been working since 1994 to write the GNU operating system, which includes a compiler (GCC), text editor (Emacs), debugger (GDB), all of which are needed to actually write, compile, and debug code respectively in the first place, as well as a bootloader (GRUB), shell (BASH), system utilities (coreutils), etc.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Therefore, claiming "applications run on Linux" or referencing a so-called "Linux OS" are both ridiculous and laughable, because the GNU operating system is actually needed too, and Linux is just a kernel, one small contribution in the grand scheme of things.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

At this point, Linux being combined with the GNU operating system, some components of the GNU operating system in particular being Bash, GCC, and some other GNU programs:

The phrasing is weird on this sentence. I'm not a native English speaker, so maybe that's the problem, but I can't tell what you were trying to say there.

Linux in combination with the GNU operating system, could run software and applications that had been developed for Unix.

There's literally no need for a mention of GNU in this sentence. It's trying to say Linux can run UNIX programs (and OS utils), so the fact that GNU can be used alongside it is irrelevant. The same applies to the paragraph about Xorg.

[[Linux|operating systems which use the Linux kernel]]

There's a consensus on Linux that "Linux" means operating systems that use Linux as their kernels already. No need to disambiguate that.

for it could be compiled by a computer running the GNU operating system which used the same version of the Linux kernel.

Why is the fact that a computer with GNU utils can compile the kernel a necessary addition? Why couldn't it be just for it could be compiled by a computer running an operating system which uses the same version of the Linux kernel.?

because the GNU operating system is actually needed

Have you literally head of Alpine Linux or Android?

Also, can you stop editing for each paragraph and add all your comments in a single edit? It's really hard for me to reply because your edits disrupt my edits. Betseg (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Correction: At this point, Linux was being combined with the GNU operating system, some components of the GNU operating system which were being combined in particular being Bash, GCC, and some other GNU programs:

"It's trying to say Linux can run UNIX programs (and OS utils), so the fact that GNU can be used alongside it" Linux can't "run" any applications; it's just a kernel. You need an OS to run applications, and a kernel is just one part of an OS. GNU is not run "alongside" Linux, GNU is the OS in which the Linux kernel is a small part, and GNU is the OS on which applications run.

You also seem to believe that GNU is just a collection of utilities. It is not. GNU is an OS.

"There's a consensus on Linux that "Linux" means operating systems that use Linux as their kernels already. No need to disambiguate that." Yes, there is. Linux is a kernel, not an OS. The concensus that OSs which include the Linux kernel should also be called "Linux" is a ridiculous instance of the ad populam fallacy. In reality, these systems are the combination of the GNU operating system and the Linux kernel, called GNU+Linux or GNU/Linux.

There are one or two distros which use the Linux kernel, but not the GNU operating system, such as Android and Alpine, but they are not what the article is about; the article is about the early history of the Linux kernel, when it was first being combined with the GNU system.

Why couldn't it be just for it could be compiled by a computer running an operating system which uses the same version of the Linux kernel.? That's technically true, but at the time the only operating systems that used the Linux kernel were various GNU+Linux distros; OSs which used the Linux kernel but not GNU had not been invented yet, and as such are irrelevant at that point in history.

"Also, can you stop editing for each paragraph and add all your comments in a single edit? It's really hard for me to reply because your edits disrupt my edits." We are both guilty of that.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

We are both guilty of that. yes, my example was bad, and I realized too late, my bad.

Linux can't "run" any applications no, it can. at boot it runs /sbin/init, which would run further programs such as putty; or it can run arbitrary binaries with the command line argument init=[executable]. If that argument is, say, the Bourne shell, that shell can be used to run further programs.

You need an OS to run applications

you need a **lot** more than a kernel, getty, and shell to get an OS running

GNU is an OS.

from the article operating system: An operating system (OS) is system software that manages computer hardware, software resources, and provides common services for computer programs. this is Linux, and a libC. No part of this definition only includes GNU programs and excludes any non-GNU program. I don't think GNU provides an init software for Linux, so a Linux distribution can arguably be called a GNU/systemd/Linux distro.

If you're instead talking about usability, a system with just a shell is still an operating system. Not a terribly usable one, but one nonetheless.

OSs which used the Linux kernel but not GNU had not been invented yet I swear I saw a forum or a mailing list post that mentioned a person that used Linux with SysV utils but I can't find it for the life of me.

Betseg (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

An init system is not an application, it's a program which is part of the OS; at the point when the init system is executed, no useful application could run on the system. As you mentioned, running a shell at this point would be relatively pointless without first initialising the rest of the system. GNU has an init system, called Shepherd, although you can use non-GNU init systems like OpenRC if you want. If you want to call a GNU system its verbose, full name, which includes a greater number of programs installed on the system, such as GNU+Linux-libre+OpenRC+etc. then go ahead, but calling it just "Linux" is incorrect because the heart of the system is basically the GNU system with Linux added.

That article is incorrect. "OS" can also refer to the entire system, not just the kernel and libC.

As I've now explained and justified my rationale for editing the article, let's restore it to this revision <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux_kernel&oldid=1076748452>.v

I'd also like to note that @Quetstar: rolled back changes that were irrelevant to the edit war.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It's been four days; I'm going to go ahead and restore the page.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

And I am going to restore it back to its original state from before your changes because i disagree with them. Quetstar (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"I disagree" is not a valid reason for doing so. Please either explain yourself or undo the revert.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)+

The heart of the system is the kernel; everything else is just add-ons. Maybe compromise and call it Linux-X.11? IMHO it's time for WP:DRN or WP:RFC? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That is misleading; being the most low-level component does not make it the most important, because the OS will not work if *any* critical component is missing, eg. without a compiler, the kernel could never have been compiled in the first place, without a bootloader, the kernel could not have been loaded in the first place, without a text editor, the kernel could not have been written in the first place, etc.

Many of my additions are irrelevant to this dispute, and so are the additions of other editors that have also been reverted. I am going to revert the page, and if you want to revert it again, please only revert the specific GNU additions so that it is clear what we are discussing. Ideally, leave it be because "I disagree" is not a valid reason, it's a personal opinion. My additions added several citations. Where are yours?

185.217.158.63 (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

So you think that the core parts of Linux, I mean the operating system, is _not_ the Linux kernel...

OK, let's assume your point for a moment.

I compile Linux with Clang and I boot it with rEFInd.

So, what has GNU got to do with them?

For what it regards to the firmware binary blobs, it still looks like you cannot understand the difference between kernels and firmware.

Why don't you write something like "the Linux kernel is 100% open source and free, but the official (Torvald's tree) also hosts proprietary firmware.".

Saying that the kernel is "mostly free" is plain false from a technical perspective. Firmware is not kernel, but, as I said, either you have something to do with FSF propaganda or you simply don't master the subject. Thanks for disrupting what was a nice article. Now it is up to you and everyone else who may care Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The compiler does not have to use the kernel that it is compiling, and most compilers do not come from FSF. Of course, the thrust of my edit was not that FSF's claim is bogus, but rather that it is time to use on of Wikipedia's disput resolution mechanisms. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as i'm aware, Linux is a fully fledged OS. GNU is just a distribution of software. In fact, Linux isn't even the project's official kernel. That distinction belongs to the Hurd, which has been in development since forever. Also, you should not revert while discussions are under way, pursuant to WP:DR, so I will revert them again and I expect it to be settled here. Quetstar (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

For the bazillionth time: Linux is a kernel. GNU is an OS. Firmware is code and is part of the kernel, hence the kernel is partly proprietary.

I added references and citations and links to the blobs in Linux, yet people still make these same mistakes!

"So, what has GNU got to do with them?" you're setting up a contrived yet technically possible situation to try and distract from the fact that most OSs which use Linux, which is a kernel, are GNU. It is technically possible to use a non-GNU OS and plug in Linux as a kernel, but this is exceedingly rare aside from Android and Alpine, which this article is not about. The article is about the early history of the Linux kernel, when it was initially being plugged into the greater GNU operating system, which is why GNU is relevant.

Linux doesn't just "host" proprietary firmware on kernel.org and reference blobs located in the filesystem it can load into a device at runtime, as I have previously linked you to, it has blobs embedded within its mainline source tree, in code files. Therefore, Linux is partly made of blobs and is partly proprietary.

"either you have something to do with FSF propaganda or you simply don't master the subject." once again, the first claim is laughable and the second is a thinly-veiled insult.

"The compiler does not have to use the kernel that it is compiling, and most compilers do not come from FSF." That's true, but my edits did not say this. You're misremembering them.

"As far as i'm aware, Linux is a fully fledged OS. GNU is just a distribution of software." you are unfortunately mistaken. GNU is an OS which was initially announced in 1983 and work begun on it in 1984. Linux was released as free software about a decade later and was then plugged into the GNU operating system that Stallman and free software hackers had been writing for about a decade at that point. Unfortunately, Wikiepdia at the moment has many silly quirks that obscure this, like referring to the Linux kernel, the GNU+Linux operating system, and operating system distributions which use the Linux kernel all as "Linux", which is not only incorrect but also incredibly confusing. This is why the disambiguation is necessary. Experienced technical people might be able to work out in their heads which one is being referred to, although it is sometimes completely ambiguous. Nevertheless, non-technical people will have no chance of figuring this out and will just be confused.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)