

Linux kernel booting process, part 1 - 0xAX
https://github.com/0xAX/linux-insides/blob/master/linux-bootstrap-1.md

======
callesgg
Thought that GNU/Linux was to be used when one was talking about a full distro
and just Linux is the "correct" way of referring to the actual kernel.

~~~
teddyh
You are correct. I suspect that the author started writing “the Linux kernel”,
and later changed it to “the GNU/Linux kernel”. But the words “the Linux
kernel" doesn’t make any sense – Linux _is_ a kernel, it doesn’t _have_ a
kernel; you could say “the kernel Linux”, meaning “the kernel which is named
Linux”, but you can’t sensibly say “the Linux kernel”, since that would mean
“the kernel of Linux”, which would be nonsensical. Therefore, writing “the
GNU/Linux kernel” _does_ make sense, but it is the same as writing “the kernel
of GNU/Linux”, which is merely a roundabout way of writing “Linux”. The phrase
“the GNU/Linux kernel” is weird, like writing “the shape of the Pyramid of
Cheops” when you simply mean “pyramidal”.

Summary; the Operating System, of which there are many variants known as
“Distributions”, is “GNU/Linux”. Some distributions choose to use this term
verbatim, like Debian GNU/Linux, and others don’t, but they are all GNU/Linux
variants all the same¹. The kernel is named “Linux”, so you can call it “the
kernel” or “Linux” interchangeably.

① Except the ones who go out of their way to exorcise the GNU components but
still use Linux; one example of a project which does this is Android.

~~~
scott_s
"The Linux kernel" makes sense. Real language, particularly names, do not have
to follow strict grammatical rules.

Although, now that I think about it, there probably is a name for this sort of
thing, because we do it often, particularly with brands. Marlboro cigarettes.
Pepsi soda.

~~~
nitrogen
Brand names are sometimes called "proper adjectives". I seem to remember
reading that food brands in particular must modify a noun that describes the
food.

------
scott_s
I did a similar walkthrough back in 2004 for x86. Comparing what has changed
(and not) may be interesting: [http://www.scott-a-s.com/the-linux-boot-
process-of-2004/](http://www.scott-a-s.com/the-linux-boot-process-of-2004/)

~~~
fallinsky
nice article

------
gshrikant
Great writeup! I've been trying to dig a little deeper into the x86 boot
process for some time now. Does anyone have recommendations for similar
walkthroughs for the bootstrap processes and BIOS/UEFI firmware (Coreboot, for
example)?

------
aceperry
Nice writeup, especially if you already learned this stuff a while ago. I
suspect that if you're not familiar with the x86 architecture, you'd be lost
very quickly.

------
djcapelis
This series would make a great PoC||GTFO article! Consider sending it to the
editors!

------
rasz_pl
>2^16 or 0xffff (640 kilobytes)

yeah ..

