Talk:Configuration Menu Language

What exactly happened

¿What exactly happened that this apparently much superior configuration system has not been adopted ? This is the closest explanation I have been able to find from an interview of Eric S. Raymond by Robert Mcmillan (http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-ivesr.html?ca=dgr-lnxw09EricRaymond) <Interview Quote> dW: What happened with the CML2 kernel configurator?

Raymond: It was horrible. It was the best work of my life, and it was mugged by kernel list politics.

dW: It sounds like that was a pretty ambitious project.

Raymond: It was, I mean I built an intelligent configurator -- basically a baby rule-based expert system -- for configuring Linux kernels, and I did it all in less than 8,000 lines of Python. It was a system that literally made it impossible to get an invalid kernel configuration because it would do intelligent deduction from constraints. And I had the full approval of the kernel config group, I had Linus's imprimatur that this was going to go into 2.5, and it all fell apart politically. It was horrible.

dW: But you're the guy who taught the world that in the open source community the best code wins.

Raymond: And it didn't this time. And that was horribly disappointing to me.

dW: Why didn't it?

Raymond: Because Linus abdicated his leadership role, broke his promises, and there are dinosaurs on the kernel list. It's a very conservative, hostile culture.

dW: So if there was another chapter for Cathedral and the Bazaar that you would write based on what you learned there, what was the lesson?

Raymond: That it is possible for open source cultures in some respects to ossify enough that good work is locked out. And that is a long-term problem that I don't know how we're going to deal with.

I also think part of the reason that it happened was that there are people on the kernel list who are really hostile to the idea of making kernel configuration accessible to everybody. They want it to continue being a black art. </Interview Quote> The article should expand on the basic role a kernel configuration menu language, perhaps move on to comparing CML vis-a-vis CML2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Intersofia (talk • contribs) 12:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I know this is old, but a recent comment by Linus indicates that it was rejected by the core kernel team and the article has been updated to reflect this.

--Powerlord 05:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

what's the point of linking to CML2?

It's just the path not taken, right? This is a question, not a position I am advocating. If we get into an exploration of every decision on every software project... Elinruby (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

on reflection have added as I do not think I can assess notability of CML2 or whether it should be linked to here. I am inclined to say thumbs down, though. Please see extensive discussions on the author's home page. There are definitely strong feelings at work here.Elinruby (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

related question -- is LinuxKernelConf still in use? I do not see recent updates and suspect that it may have become a command or a step in a GUI wizard vs a separate tool.Elinruby (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Elinruby (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"compiler" should be replaced, perhaps with "user" or "admin"

I meant it as "the person compiling" but the term is probably unfortunate in a software article. User does not seem right either; surely you would be root when doing this? Elinruby (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

update to reflect current 3.0 version

I understand that 3.0 is a release in name only, but there were intervening releases, right? Including a security fix? so did these affect LinuxKernelConf? Elinruby (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

need help with linux or perhaps history of linux

Kernel config -- is that a command now?

status of LinuxKernelConfig?

Please assess importance of spat over CML2. Someone not already arguing about it ;)

For the topic of this article CML2 would constitute a separate section. P.S.: I would be very doubted, if this RfC won't bring this article to AfD. You'd better add some sources now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dmitij. None of the present sources seem to be reliable as specified by the Wikipedia guideline - if none can be found then I would suggest merging this article into History of Linux. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not invested either way in the existence of this article. I came to it when I was working on a related page. Personally, I think it is a rather pointless article about a long-ago decision in the history of Linux; but I do not claim expertise in the field (certainly not enough to add to this page) and opened the RfC wondering if there was another point of view out there. I asked the above questions because I do not know the answers and am content with whatever the outcome may be. Thanks for the input so far, guys. Elinruby (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Merge: with History of Linux; seems to lack sources and enough content for itself. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Chen link

Maybe I'm wrong and he's a real renaissance man, but I rather doubt that the Raymond Chen linked wrote CML:

   Raymond T. Chen (born July 1968) is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.210.238 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)