New kernel.org | Hacker News Reader

New kernel.org

kernel.org

173 pointsmrnil37 comments

Open articleView on HN

Here's what I did on the old kernel.org:

1. I typed in www.kernel.org

2. I looked for the new kernel on the page that loaded.

3. I clicked on the link and my download started.

On the new kernel.org:

1. I type in www.kernel.org

2. I look for the new kernel on the page that loads.

3. I click on the link and my download starts.

Conclusion: Good job. You made the site look more modern without disrupting the most common workflow.

The only 2 suggestions I have are

1. The entire container for "Latest Stable Kernel" should be the hit point; yes, all of it, including those words.

2. When I hover over the tabular download links, my eye can get confused on which row I'm on. Something purely css and really subtle would alleviate that; for instance:

* changing the row background color

* changing the color of the font for the row

* prepending a UL style dot to the LHS of the row

* making the bordertop and borderbottom more distinct

* underlying or italicizing the words

* etc...

any of these things would help and I'm totally agnostic to what is done; it would be a quick fix that would really make the thing less prone to human error.

As a member of the Pelican dev team, I think I speak for all of us when I saw we were thrilled to see such a high-profile site running on Pelican. The folks at kernel.org were even kind enough to mention it on their new site: https://www.kernel.org/pelican.html

Those of us in the #pelican IRC channel had a rousing cheer and virtual clinking of the glasses. :^)

If anyone has questions about Pelican, please feel free to ask here or on our IRC channel.

Edit: And if you're going to PyCon in Santa Clara, CA this month, hit us up on Twitter (@getpelican) to get info about our pre-PyCon meetup.

Congrats! Pelican is a great software. Use it together with Github-pages and you do not need any hosting space for your blog/site.

Any guides on making a pure "portfolio" sort of page, no blog whatsoever? All of the examples that I have seen have a blog component. I am just looking to make some basic header/nav/content/footer type templates. Thanks for your work on Pelican! I found it two days ago while looking for a static site generator and I was excited to see it mentioned in the news.

That's certainly been requested and is coming in the next version, hopefully to be released sometime this month. Thanks to the hard work done by Bruno, one of the other dev team members, you will soon be able to override pages by specifying a source file and a destination URL: https://github.com/getpelican/pelican/pull/623

With this in place, you should be able to populate your site with pages (e.g., /content/pages/{index.md,about.md,portfolio.md,contact.md,etc}) without any chronological blog content.

Getting a 404 on getpelican.com. The github site [1] has some info at least.

[1]: https://github.com/getpelican

I knew I saw this design somewhere else: http://coding.smashingmagazine.com/2009/08/04/designing-a-ht...

Granted, it's not "complicated" but it's also the same colors...

Edit: Smashing Mag is mentioned on Pelican blog: http://blog.getpelican.com

At least they give him credit:

https://www.kernel.org/theme/css/main.css

Pelican's default theme includes explicit thanks, and a link, in the footer of every single page -- which is certainly more noticeable than attribution inside a CSS file.

I appreciate the move from gitweb to cgit; I've encouraged countless others to make the same transition, and now have a good reference to point at when I do so.

Nice font, kernel.org

http://i.snag.gy/05FuX.jpg

I always love websites with custom fonts that don't render correctly. When I see a website with great typography, most of the time it turns out to be Georgia or Arial, or sometimes even Timew New Roman (which his a good font, but simply overused). I've yet to see a custom font that reads better than correctly applied default fonts.

ME TOO! http://snag.gy/Ylpjg.jpg

When a site like kernel.org goes online with a broken font, something must be fundamentally wrong in the world of programmers and people generating content for displays. What would be the situation like, if we were printing millions of books with 20 dpi technology? Would this be ignored by the masses and people who are annoyed by the eye-hurting results would be trolls?

We should see this as a clear (cough) signal, that it is time to start some major broken-font-campaign - more and more web developers seem to be so overloaded with CSS and JS framework learning, they totally forget about the most basic things - IMHO it is still the first and most noble duty of a real webdev to make a site nicely readable on all displays.

This annoying font-disease must be taken very seriously - it is ignoring the most important aspects of life: health. I feel offended if somebody forces me to read a website with such a broken font - it hurts my eyes, and as a computer guy I need my eyes for work, so it is a serious attack.

I was humbly accepting it as a personal disability for years, that I needed WinXP fonts on every Linux distro to have a satisfying font display. But I kept wondering about how the creators of thousands of Linux tutorial screenshots could not realize that they were looking at a broken font and destroying the functionality of their most important input devices.

Luckily in the last years it got much better on Linux, but then came the iFlood, Win7, and finally the ultimate weapon of ophthalmologists for generating an endless income stream: webfonts.

Now I am confronted every single day with websites with broken fonts. This is a serious regression and every web designer and every programmer involved in font rendering code should stop working on anything else until this problem is fixed.

Yes, I know there are many reasons for this problem, it is not only the web developers - anyway, please let us fix it now.

Here it renders perfectly on Fedora in Firefox, Chrome and Safari on Mac OS X, Firefox and IE9 on Windows Vista.

It would be nice if the people who encounter these text-rendering problems mention what setup they use.

Google Chrome on Linux Mint 13 (Ubuntu 12.04LTS). Probably same issue on Chrome on Windows 7.

The reason I didn't mention my hardware at first is because nobody ever gives a damn about typography. I've tested these bugs cross-platform often enough, but nobody ever replies, so I stopped doing that.

Wasted too much time with these kind of reports.

Also every web designer that is not testing stuff on the 10 most used system configurations of the world will have a very bad time in hell and will receive some extra eternities for prolonged torture.

Web designers must develop more interest in making the text readable everywhere. Underlying technical problems are well known to the "community" and should be solved.

Works for me.

Probably you are using some Linux distribution with misconfigured freetype.

In that case Windows 7 also has a misconfigured freetype.

MS always screws something up...

Maybe your browser uses it. Or misconfigured/buggy something else. Anyway, this font appears to render correctly for most people.

I knew these kind of answers would pop up, I had one sentence predicting this in my text, but erased it to let the magic happen.

Are you able to realize that it is, of many options you have, the dumbest possibility to just burp a simple "it works here". Would you answer this on a bugreport?

I assume, it was an ironic answer, in this case I congrat you for holding the mastership of the highest art of subtile trolling, very inspriring.

In fact you are simulating the typical xtreme-dumb answers perfectly, that are received on "bad-font-whining" regularly - this is exactly the reason why we need a major bad-font-campaign, because this is not only a technical problem, but the roots seem to be hidden in a deeper socio-techno-cultural level of our brains - that "systems are getting too complex"-stuff leads in the end to the human brain regressing strongly in certain areas to amoeba-state.

> Would you answer this on a bug report?

If I was unable reproduce the bug with the information given, it seems reasonable to mention that. Also, the effort required by the bug reporter to mention basic information on the setup they use is much less than for a web developer to boot up 5 different systems (including iOS and Android) to test out each major browser in them.

I'll have you know that I have been wary of using non-default fonts because of these reports.

You need to enable the site in noscript for its fonts to render correctly.

Javascript is on.

Seems like a common sense design, no complaints, but it's funny to notice how the wider our screens become, the narrower the sites get.

That's no surprise to me - monitors are so ridiculously wide these days that it's impossible to ignore the need to limit the length of a line of text. When you're working at 1680x1050 you can kinda ignore it, but with 1920 or more horizontal pixels, text needs to be broken up into columns, and you've also got enough horizontal space to have two windows side-by-side without feeling cramped.

That has always surprised me about Wikipedia. So many articles on recommended line width, height, font, etc., and Wikipedia gets away with just one style rule (font-family: sans-serif). Never heard any complaints or noticed that it was bad typography.

Yeah they have more style rules, but disabling them doesn't visibly change anything so they're the defaults.

I started using pelican recently and I really enjoy static site generation. It's amazing how little needs to actually execute server side (blog content in a database?) It's also much easier to focus on writing when I don't have shiny objects distracting me.

I wish it were a more mainstream thing. It's impossible to compromise a statically generated website (discounting webserver/OS level vulnerablities). It's significantly more secure then Wordpress running tons of plugins

I was never much of a blogger but i liked tumblogs the old days.

My webspace could not run ruby so i took the approach 3 times to write a static site generator. For me, i would take that route again. I have my favourite editor to write stuff and who the hell needs a database for a blog or something small?

I use the last system i wrote still, but I take notes with it and save images to a local repository.

It's also way faster

I'm thinking of being able to serve pages when you hit the front page of HN or Slashdot or Techcrunch. You'll probably be fine, or worst case you can put it on AWS in five minutes and have all the scalability you need.

OTOH if you have a database, scaling's going to be a pain.

Hm... seems like there's no way to download a tarball in cgit, but I'm not sure if this functionality was enabled in kernel.org's gitweb either.

I know that cgit supports downloading tarballs of tags at least, but they seem to have disabled that. I can't say I blame them, they already host the official release tarballs, and tag tarballs would only contain the same thing.

Well done. I happened to visit kernel.org earlier this week for the first time in many years and I was surprised at the dated appearance.

Nice. Looks clean, things are well sorted.

Nice... Good... Cool... Required. Thanks for keeping the structure same and putting no 'extra features'.

Finally a change... but.. the font looks weird, looking at the CSS:

https://www.kernel.org/theme/css/main.css

that style was made on 2009!!!

Please somebody fix that fonts

Oh hey now it looks like every other site on the Internet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com