There is so much bullshit in this article. Or is it just sarcasm? It's credibility is lost for me the moment he mentions /proc/version. /proc/ may or may not w

There is so much bullshit in this article. Or is it just sarcasm? It's credibility is lost for me the moment he mentions /proc/version. /proc/ may or may not work. It's not a secret that now we have weird solutions like WSL that is actually a linux from users perspective, but some things are a lie. Like load is just a constant string, because there is no kernel that can calculate it properly. Or look at the mentioned commands in article, but in WSL: host:~$ (WSL): cat /proc/version Linux version 4.4.0-17763-Microsoft (Microsoft@Microsoft.com) (gcc version 5.4.0 (GCC) ) #1217-Microsoft Mon May 05 16:09:00 PST 2020 host:~$ (WSL): arch x86_64 So it DOES provide additional information. Some commands are not used much but in unix-land I can take a book from 1988 and use most of it successfully even on modern weird distributions and projects that are not exactly Linux. But the author suggests I can "ask the source". Well, I can also edit /etc/passwd or sudoers directly, but I won't. If this is not sarcasm in that article, I am lost how this got published by redhat.