linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] README: Find more sane first words we have to say about Linux

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 1 May 2017 18:01:02 +0200
From:   Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     mchehab@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] README: Find more sane first words we have to say about
 Linux

Am 2017-05-01 um 17:24 schrieb Jonathan Corbet:
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 22:11:35 +0200
> Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de> wrote:
> 
>> Imagine you're completely new to Linux, just real quick, ok? What do you do?
>> Wouldn't having a look at README be under first if no *the* first thing?
>> Ah there it is: README. "Linux kernel". nice! So what's that?
>> "This file was moved to ...... Please notice that there are several....".
>> Wtf!? Why? Can't they just tell me what's going on like a normal person?
> 
> So I don't doubt we could put something better there, but can we think for
> a moment about who the audience is here?  If you're "completely new to
> Linux", will you really start by jumping into the kernel source tree?
> Somehow I'm not quite convinced...  It seems to me that the README file
> should be aimed at developers who know what the kernel is but are not yet
> familiar with the process of configuring and building it.
> 

It should definitely be aimed at developers. But even as a developer who
is completely new to kernel development, it's nice to have some broad
context in 2 or 3 lines first.

(again, I'm a little exaggerating and) trying to see from an outside
point of view:
What other "official brief definition" of what Linux is could there be?
Right now one has the impression that the Linux Foundation has
"official" information, but that's (very strictly speaking) pretty
random right? Besides developers, I can imagine technical literature to
have a look at projects' README files for that.

I mean there *is* the new README.rst which is awesome. But it wouldn't
hurt to summarize the first few things in the README and then refer to
the doc. It should be something for people who

* already checked out the source obviously (developers, but or technical
authors, or any interested engineer), and

* who would *maybe* say, "what? nothing in the README? ok. I'll take
some definition I found online then" and not bother reading the
Documentation directory just yet.

                      martin