I understand the curiosity but why does it matter? They clearly made an effort to stay anonymous. Is it the challenge in doxxing?
I am only at the first page, but already I must recommend this work
as unmissable, and "I should have read this as a child" - that is, for those who feel a lack of solid ground until they know exactly what makes the machine work.
I read some of this to try to determine how it would compare to a classic operating systems design book - like maybe "The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System".
Looking at the Paging  chapter, the _Linux Insides_ book has a clear, very technical, description of the meaning of every bit in pointers used for virtual addressing. It includes details like what bits you need to set in order to enable a particular paging mode, so it's really enough detail to actually _do_ something.
I don't think I'm the target audience, but it was interesting to look at.
This is already outdated, right? Nobody boots up from legacy BIOS anymore, so everything up to and including "transitioning to 64-bit" is wrong. UEFI boot is simpler, but still worth digging into. And what about AARCH64 and other platforms where there are no CPU modes to go through?
> Nobody boots up from legacy BIOS anymore
Not true at all. Plenty of people still use BIOS boot (in the data center) for things like PXEBOOT.
This looks like a really good resource, but why is it so difficult to find a somewhat up-to-date description of networking in the Linux kernel?
It seems like the least documented (at a high level, anyway) part of the kernel - if anyone knows a good resource I'd love to hear it.
I guess it's so complicated that no one wants to write it. I can feel it when compiling Linux kernel from source. The number of options in networking part seems humongous.
Anyone else read this title to the tune of "Intel Inside"?
> The basic usage is the same as other mailing lists powered by mailman.
Would be nice if this section was more detailed. Mailing lists can be quite confusing for the uninitiated.
Holy cow!!! This is amazing. Do you offer training videos also?
Man I always want to read about this stuff but it always comes across super dull. I really think the standard Computer Science curriculum needs to focus more on writing. Seems to me that if programming is mostly about communication we should focus more on learning to write in a more engaging style.
Any examples of tech documentation that you find more appealing? I'm trying to improve in this area.
To me, it seems one of the best written pieces I have ever read, fitting to its purpose.
One suspect: some people may read that «engaging» as "glamorously captivating": that would alienate readers interested in that content - the opposite effect. The contextual text has to be lean and respond to the questions the intended reader may have. It is engaging because, as it rarely happens, it gives precisely the information you want, without adding noise (which has an discouraging effect).