This user is alternative name of fabio_m_de_francesco. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to thank you for all your edits to the Linux kernel page. You are obviously very knowledgeable about the kernel.

However, I must ask if you know about Linux-libre, as the deblobbing efforts are ongoing and quite real. I run Parabola with a variant of the Linux-libre kernel, and it obviously has an effect because my laptop's internal Wi-Fi and Bluetooth card will not work due to missing firmware; proprietary firmware which Linux-libre removed from the mainline Linux kernel. I also get many "/* DEBLOBBED */" messages on boot, which indicate blobs were trying to be loaded, but they were removed; proprietary microcode, for instance.

Blobs in the Linux kernel are not obvious. They are hidden and sometimes well-hidden in plain site. For instance, some binaries are in .c files as long arrays of bytes. I invite you to download the Linux-libre source tree to read the deblob script, and compare the deblobbed source tree to the mainline one.

These binaries are not GNU GPLv2-covered, and would be violating the GNU GPLv2 if they were, because they are not in the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".

Thank you. :)

185.89.35.4 (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just read what you wrote on Talk:Linux kernel#Linux kernel licensing rules.

May I ask why you show disdain by stating that contributors who disagree with you are not even worthy of the term (by calling them ""contributors"")? Please can you show proof that Linux-libre is just "GNU propaganda"? Please can you explain why Linux-libre exists if the mainline Linux kernel is blob-free?

Have you seen what the Linux-libre deblob scripts remove and check for? Have you seen that they are indeed blobs? Do you want me to point you in the direction of one so you can see for yourself?

Thank you. :)

185.89.35.4 (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one such example of a blob: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/net/wan/wanxlfw.inc_shipped?h=v5.8-rc7

Here is another: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aic79xx_seq.h_shipped?h=v5.8-rc7

Ans here is one more: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/gt215.fuc3.h?h=v5.8-rc7

As I'm sure you can see, these blobs are long sequences of bytes disguised as .c source files. No C programmer can understand them effectively. They are proprietary, binary blobs.

Thank you. :)

185.89.35.4 (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, first of all, I want to say that I'm really sorry for having shown disdain by writing "contributor". I shouldn't have done it and, as said, I ask you to excuse me.

Let's return to the subject. Please read my reply at Linux kernel talk.

Have a nice weekend, Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've just added more to the above-mentioned reply. Please read that, if you are still interested in the subject. Thanks a lot for the time you've spent on this topic :) Cheers, Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments added to Linux kernel talk.

Normally assemblers, compilers, linkers, etc. are classified as systems programs. Peter Flass (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Flass:

First of all... I thank you. I know you have a lot of experience, mostly with IBM machines that I've never seen. My first computer was an dismissed S/36, my second one an AS/400. When you started in 1967 I was 1 year old.

That said, I still think that the set of system programs contains just what is needed for computers to bootstrap themselves, to provide consistent interfaces to users while hiding the intricacies of hardware, to create and kill user processes, to make arbitration of time and space resources, to evaluate credentials and authorizations of user applications...

In short: system programs comprise all and only what is needed for computers to run user applications. Not more, not less.

Obviously, different architectures require different sets of system software. Hypervisors, might be needed or not. HPC's running hundreds of thousands of distributed nodes require MPI and other middleware that mainstream PC's don't need.

Let me return to compilers, debuggers, assemblers, and the like... for sure they are made of very low level code. Compiler developers know their targets at a deeper level than most kernel developers. Notwithstanding compilers aren't needed in order to run other user applications.

Furthermore compilers run in user space only if system programs retrieve load and assign resources to them. If the operating system kills processes running compilers, all other processes wouldn't even notice or care Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of my edits was reverted by a very experienced user. We have exchanged some messages in his/her talk page but we still disagree. I'd like to go on to the relevant article's talk page in order to know what other users have to say on the subject. Obviously I'd like that these users could read what was reverted and see all the messages already exchanged. How can I solve my issue? Thanks in advance Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add a note to the article's talk page that the issue already has been discussed at User talk:DVdm#Reverted edit in "Mass" article (with the link). Regarding the reverted changes, a link to this diff may help. Huon (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{Page needed}} to each of the book citations that you recently added to Logic. If you can add specific page number ranges to the citations (with |pages=), that would be helpful. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist:

Following your suggestion, I added information about the relevant pages for citations #2 and #3, but not for #4. Please let me explain...

Citation #2 comes from a specific page, therefore it was an easy task.

Citations #3 and #4, in my opinion, can only be verified by carefully comparing most (if not all) the chapters in Quine and McGinn's books; Although I think that chapters 1 and 6 of Quine's might suffice to support verifiability, conversely I'm not able to select any particular chapter from McGinn's book.

Notwithstanding the Wikipedia's guidelines state that page references are optional, I remain open to any suggestion if it can help in solving my difficulties with this issue. Greetings, Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the page numbers! I interpret Wikipedia's guidelines as saying that page numbers are required unless a statement refers to a book or article as a whole (or to an unpaginated source, of course). Wikipedia:Citing sources § Identifying parts of a source: "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited." Biogeographist (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist:

As I wrote in another page, unfortunately, I love English but Italian is my mother tongue; at the same time I'm a newbie here at Wikipedia. This is why I'm sure that your interpretation of the guidelines must be correct. As soon as possible I'll try to select ranges of pages from the McGinn's book too. I own that book and I read it a lot of time ago, but believe me when I say it'll be a hard work. However I'll try and do my best. Thanks for your time and kindness. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist:

I've added a link to a review of the book of McGinn that I had cited. That review explicitly compare the different points of view between McGinn and Quine about the scope of Logic. I hope it will be sufficient for supporting my edit. As I said it's very difficult for me to provide the pages you requested, because I think that the book as a whole should be cited. Please, if you have time, read the above-mentioned source and let me know if the template "page needed" can be removed or not. Thanks

Regarding [1] and [2], please have a look at wp:FIRSTSENTENCE, wp:edit warring and wp:BRD. You can discuss on the article talk page. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Special:Diff/970787569, the presence or absence of a user page has nothing to do with pings. You can always ping registered accounts, and you can never ping IP addresses. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackmcbarn: Thanks a lot, I didn't know that. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In your last edit to Linux kernel, you changed the text to Version 4.1 of Linux, released in June 2015, contains over 19.5 million lines of code contributed by almost 14,000 programmers.^[1] A total of 1,991 developers, of whom 334 are first contributors, have added more than 553,000 lines of code to version 5.8 compared to the previous. but compared to the previous. doesn't have a referent. Were you trying to say something like "compared to the foo lines of code added to the previous version."? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chatul: Thanks a lot for watching. Sometimes I feel like I'm alone in taking care of this topic (in the last eight months, i made 186 edits in the Linux kernel article, however I got reviews only a couple of times).

I forgot to mention which previous version the referent is. Now it's fixed (I hope). Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you've been making a lot of good edits to Linux kernel, so I wondered if you could help with something. I came across Kernel virtual address space when searching through orphaned articles, and I'm not well-versed enough to know whether it's something that should have its own article, or whether it should be merged to "Linux kernel" or elsewhere. Do you have any suggestions as to what to do with it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos:

Hello Premeditated Chaos,

First of all, I'd like to thank you. I appreciate your interest in my edits.

Second, the article (sic) you mentioned is pure garbage. Kernel threads have not their own address space. For your convenience, here I report a quote from a more reliable source than I will ever be:

"[The] significant difference between kernel threads and normal processes is that kernel threads do not have an address space. Their mm pointer, which points at their address space, is NULL. They operate only in kernel space and do not context switch into user space.".^[1]

That stuff must be deleted.

Cheers, Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's damning. I've taken it to PROD with a note referring to this discussion. Thanks much! In the future, if I come across other Linux-related orphans that I can't figure out on my own, do you mind if I ask you for help? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Ask me whenever you want to. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was directed to your talk page by the participants list on WikiProject Linux. I've started a discussion whether we can keep it running, or mark it as inactive.– Abuluntu ( talk 05:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abuluntu:

Hi Abuluntu, I'm working hard on improving the Linux kernel article, for it being the "conditio sine qua non" (the necessary condition) for the existence of everything related to the Linux OS and of all the Linux distributions. Furthermore, without the existence of the Linux kernel there also wouldn't be any Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux.

According to xtools authorship statistics,^[2] I'm the top contributor to the article, I have already written about the 40% of it, and I've edited it 238 times. I've also planned to extend it with much more information, remove redundancies, remove unsubstantiated statements, remove unnecessary historical and legal details, add citations links to authoritative sources, and reordering the flow of its sections.

Unfortunately, because I'm so much involved in editing the Linux kernel article (I've also a certain minor interest in contributing to other articles, some of them belonging to other projects - from computer science to philosophy, and pharmacology) I haven't yet been able to spend time on the WikiProject activities and in talking with the other participants.

Notwithstanding the above mentioned reasons, I absolutely believe that the project must be kept active, therefore, please do not mark it as inactive.

Furthermore, when I'll be done with the above mentioned article, I intend to actively work with the other participants with the purpose of coordinating contributions to the other Linux related articles.

Thanks for asking for my opinion on this issue. Cheers, Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I’ve included your view in the discussion. Another option mentioned is to join WP:FOSS or make the project into a task force in stead. (≈ Less administration more actual editing) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuluntu (talk • contribs) 07:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]