Back to topic: The comments there mention that binary-compatibility with other unices might have been a reason to have per-architecture syscall numbers, but fail to explain why the more recent architectures (x86_64 and arm, e.g.) would keep that compatibility – certainly tries to run, say, HP-UX binaries on Linux any longer?
It seems to be very factual and describe what is with no editorialised position on whether anything is good or bad which reduces the opportunity for an exchange of valid viewpoints.
It might be that the article is interesting but without people feeling knowledgeable enough to add much. And if the article doesn't make any significant errors the knowledgeable people won't jump in with corrections.
> Originally (in the days of Linux 1.x / 2.0) Linux attempted to be binary compatible to existing Unices on common hardware (the personality(2) system call is also part of this). As time passed, compatibility with other Unices became mostly a non-issue – but now we do need to maintain binary compatibility with older Linux binaries…
Edit: also Linux is made with completely moronic way to return errors (it uses some negative values as errors).
The medical equivalent of that would be a patient coming in with "doc, I've go a pain", and when the MD asks where, they answer "I'm not sure". Which happens. In both cases, the professionals need to figure out what the underlying problem is, despite being given unhelpful information.
Now, as far as "The Anatomy of X" is concerned, that's somewhat of an overloaded expression. In this context, we generally do expect to not only get structural but also functional information.
If you expect human language to always follow pre-defined conventions, you're just setting yourself up for a lot of unnecessary grief. Language and the meaning conveyed by it are naturally subject to context variations, drift, re-appropriations, and a whole slew of other transformations.
But even linguistically, "The Anatomy of X" is a victimless crime. I guarantee you that not one reader here clicked on the article and went "oh my, I sure was hoping they'd just print out the structs involved and left it at that".
Anatomy is a word overloaded by context in a way Physiology is not. If the article was named "The Physiology of a System Call", that does invoke a medical context where none was expected.
In any case, it's an established English word with a well-understood non-medical meaning that goes back really far in this sense, at least to the early 17th century, with John Donne's An Anatomy of the World (1611) and Robert Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy (1622).
(Finally getting some use out of those years of Greek class!)