Template talk:Linux layers

Latest few edits

Hey, Thumperward! I've reverted your edits here, as well as on the User space article; in a few words, they made things worse than before, both on the article layout side, and regarding the content provided by the template (right-side division was deleted, for example). I do agree that this template is far from being ideal, but all those changes made it even less ideal. :) Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The current version is an inaccessible nightmare which seriously misuses HTML tables. (I appreciate that it's a straight translation from the German version, and that this therefore isn't your doing, but it's nonetheless the case.) If you've any reasons beyond base aesthetics to prefer it over the new version then I'm all ears, but I don't see any evidence of that. The revamp was a bare-minimum effort to move this beyond 90s-style table abuse, and if it's not possible to agree on that then the humane thing to do would be to delete the template entirely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm always supporting all kinds of improvements, but not those breaking already existing things – just like Linux kernel development almost never breaks the userspace. :) In other words, please do whatever you find appropriate regarding refactoring of the template's HTML, but the layout visible from the outside, as well as template's fitment within articles, should remain the same. Right now it isn't the best, but it looks Ok and fits well. If refactoring isn't possible in that way, then we should delete the template and use the SVG version only. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's only used in two articles, and the accompanying wrapping table is used on both: it makes no sense, therefore, not to include it directly into the template. I suspect your problem yesterday was just that the page cache hadn't cleared, as the appearance was broadly the same before and after the updates. But I rather think that this isn't fixable in the long run and that we should just stick to the SVG (which is included in Linux already anyway). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, the wrapping table makes next to no sense. Though, I've created a test template, {{Linux layers/Test 1}}, which includes your edits, and went to see how it fits while purging the caches etc. Well, the MediaWiki's caching wasn't the issue, and it simply didn't look good, when compared to the original version. Though, went ahead and made a few edits, please check them out – this way it looks much better, so went ahead and merged the changes and propagated this new version of the template into Linux and User space articles. Hope you agree it's now good to stay with us. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Unwound version

I've unwound the tables into nested lists at template:Linux layers/sandbox. This conveys the same information but in a more semantically meaningful format. The challenge is to rework that into a form which takes up less space. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I don't see how to make that more compact without reverting back to a tables-based layout? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Unwinding it makes it easier to see how to transform it into something like a navbox. I've now done that - it's not pretty, and it's not perfect, but it's a significant improvement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm, it's looking good in form of a navbox, good job! :) ScotXW, would you please provide a comment, too? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned numerous time that I'd like to split Template:Linux into Template:Linux bla and Template:Linux kernel to make it far less bloated. Of course I'd like much better articles to link to. Your template:Linux layers/sandbox could be step into that split.

But I wouldn't replace the table. Inside of the kernel, you could differentiate maybe 5 or 6 layers in each subsystem. But the subsystems are key, the table shows that nicely. And each subsystem has it's own system calls, and then all of them, can be grouped under the name "System Call Interface", which is again important to understand compatibility. Then in userspace again the same, I'd like to put the system daemons, the libraries, the userspace parts of the graphics drivers, and maybe even the display server near each other, because they are not layered on one another. ScotXW (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)