Talk:Linux kernel

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

Linux is partly proprietary

Linux has been deblobbed by the Linux-libre project for over a decade now, which regularly removes all the in-tree blobs. By not mentioning this in the article, it is lying by omission, asserting either that Linux has no in-tree blobs, which is obviously false, or that the Linux-libre project is lying, which is also obviously false.

Past attempts to rectify this mistake were stopped and removed from the Talk page, so the article still contains falsehoods to this day.

See also: https://www.fsfla.org/pipermail/linux-libre/2020-August/003400.html

185.217.158.63 (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

To correct myslef: past attempts were moved to archive 7 of the talk page.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi 185.217.158.63,

Thank You for Your recent set of contributions!

I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell if You are right about Linux being partially proprietary, but considering that You have not yet cited any (reliable) sources, I am going to tag it as disputed for now and link to this discussion. – K4rolB (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm a Linux kernel developer with about one hundred contributions (patches) in the Linux kernel (please read the public official Torvalds' repository or simply run "git log --author="Fabio M. De Francesco").

I can assure everyone that maintainers reject code that doesn't comply with the GPL-v2.

Again, unless 185.217.158.63 proves that Linus Torvalds distributes the official Linux kernel by infringing his own choice of GPL, I'm going to remove every attempt to discredit the largest and one of the most important Community of developers.

As K4rolB stated "you have not yet cited any (reliable) sources". FSF is not reliable, is biased, and it is the only source you keep on citing.

Furthermore, you are contradicting everything it is said in the article about the license. So why not change all the rest of it, every statement about the free and open source nature of Linux, in accordance to your beliefs? Please be consistent. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Everyone here knows that Linux development is done by submitting patches to the LKML and that developers use Git. Each patch has its own unique "Commit number" (i.e., a "hash" that unequivocally identifies each work). Thus, is anybody here able to provide at least a commit hash for one of those "proprietary binary blobs"? I'll wait a couple of days and, if nobody will be able to prove that there is at least a patch with proprietary code (identifiable by a its commit hash), I'll revert everything that states that Linux is not free and open source software. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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)