×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

378 comments

Really? That's important ? (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285590)

I've always wondered what the heck with version numbers... Can someone please explain what is the difference between 3.0 and 2.6.40 ?

Re:Really? That's important ? (5, Funny)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285608)

Clearly 3.0.0 is 0.4.60 more advanced than 2.6.40.

Re:Really? That's important ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285628)

You mean 0.3.60 more.

Re:Really? That's important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285634)

math fail

Re:Really? That's important ? (5, Funny)

maeka (518272) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285636)

Clearly 3.0.0 is 0.4.60 more advanced than 2.6.40.

Oh shit! Are you telling me there is a regression in how LInux does arithmetic?

Arithmetic (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285676)

Clearly 3.0.0 is 0.4.60 more advanced than 2.6.40.

Hmm, are you forgetting to carry the overflow from minor digit to major digit? In this case, 3.0.0 would be 0.3.60 more advanced than 2.6.40, naturally.

First base! (4, Funny)

jabberw0k (62554) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285826)

Everyone knows minors don't overflow into majors. (And if you thought Naturally was the first baseman, then you don't know Who.)

Re:Really? That's important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285936)

Don't you mean 0.3.60 advanced? Otherwise it would be version 3.1.0 :)

Re:Really? That's important ? (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285614)

IIRC, Linus wanted some sort of distributed operating system for 3.0, but I read it too long ago, not sure about it...

Re:Really? That's important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285768)

Just call it cloud linux and that's good enough. No need for anything new as long as you get 'cloud' in the name somewhere.

Re:Really? That's important ? (1)

freedumb2000 (966222) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285650)

Obviously, Linus wants to follow Mozilla and speed up the release cycle by only releasing full version number releases from now on. Expect the 4.0.0 kernel sometime in the fall with no point releases in between!

Re:Really? That's important ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285664)

I guess 3.0.0 is but a symlink to 2.6.40.

Re:Really? That's important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285696)

It's just time to make a change [lkml.org]...

There's also the timing issue - since we no longer do version numbers
based on features, but based on time, just saying "we're about to
start the third decade" works as well as any other excuse.

Re:Really? That's important ? (2)

chocapix (1595613) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285704)

He wrote on the lkml [lkml.org]: "the real reason is just that I can no longer comfortably count as high as 40."

Re:Really? That's important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285726)

It's not brought out much but the Swedish language actually has not concept of numbers above 47. This could somewhat explain the problems Linus is is having.

Re:Really? That's important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285790)

It might do, if ( 1 ) it were true and ( 2 ) he was Swedish...

Re:Really? That's important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285882)

His native language is Swedish.

Re:Really? That's important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285884)

heh Well he is a Swedish-Finn.

Re:Really? That's important ? (4, Informative)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285894)

He is Finnish, but his first language is Swedish.

(PS. This is why you should not choose the language for your web site based on a geographical lookup of the IP address.)

Re:Really? That's important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285944)

While Swedish may or may not have a concept of number related humour , Linus is a Swedish speaking Finn, a rather large minority group. Finnish being his second language.

Re:Really? That's important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285738)

He wrote on the lkml [lkml.org]: "the real reason is just that I can
no longer comfortably count as high as 40."

I do not care about the version but his reasoning does not make any sense. He could as well have changed it to 2.8.0.

Re:Really? That's important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285708)

Usually a change in major version number means major incompabilities, that's what the "major" means. I.e. Python 3 is incompatible with Python 2. GTK 3 is incompatible with GTK 2. etc.
Doing so when it is in fact not incompatible upsets people's expectations but is a pleasant surprise when they find out they don't actually have to adapt everything to it.

Re:Really? That's important ? (2)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285728)

Usually a change in major version number means major incompabilities, that's what the "major" means. I.e. Python 3 is incompatible with Python 2. GTK 3 is incompatible with GTK 2. etc. Doing so when it is in fact not incompatible upsets people's expectations but is a pleasant surprise when they find out they don't actually have to adapt everything to it.

This means: 3.0.x - expect disruptive changes?

Re:Really? That's important ? (2)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285804)

No, Linus mentioned that it is an evolutionary (not revolutionary) release, and that the APIs and ABIs wouldn't change.

Not sure about the difference... (4, Funny)

denzacar (181829) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285752)

But does anyone else get chills when thinking about the 3.1.1 version somewhere down the road?
You know... as in for workgroups?

Re:Not sure about the difference... (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285798)

I've still got a real, genuine, bought-and-paid-for copy of Windows 3.11 somewhere. It didn't suck, much. I wish XP was as quick and compact.

Re:Not sure about the difference... (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285850)

Me too. When I got my first P2 box many moons ago (late '98?) I put DOS 6.22 and Win 3.11 on it , and it was *blazing* fast.

Re:Not sure about the difference... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285806)

Are we doing development branches in the 3.x.x series again?

Re:Really? That's important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285772)

Can someone please explain what is the difference between 3.0 and 2.6.40 ?

It's twice as expensive, but well worth it.

Re:Really? That's important ? (1)

Rolgar (556636) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285774)

Kernel version 2.6.0 originally released in December 2003. The second digit was incremented from 4 to 6 (odd numbers are (were?) reserved for development work) due to significant changes in coding. Since then, several stable releases have come out every year, incrementing the third series, indicating that no significant changes, to the overall kernel design, but most releases have had some important features added.

Recently, Linus expressed an interest in changing the numbering from 2.6 to 3.0. Unlike the significant amount of change between 2.4 and 2.6, Linus decided to make this change based not upon a significant change, but personal preference. Having run the first two numbers the same for over 7 years, they have had relatively little meaning for the last several years anyway, and they still won't really. It might be a minor inconvenience for those who run distributions to have to accommodate the change, but for most folks, it doesn't mean much. I wouldn't mind a numbering where like 11.2 (year and release number within the year), or just going with 40 and dropping the 2.6. I would then know that we are in the 40th release since the 2003 rewrite, and it would be shorter to say than the complete numbering system currently being used. I think that Linus is keeping the format the same going forward due to tradition (and maybe it means not having to reprogram the coding repository, or some related code that depends on kernel version number), and I suppose that's fine since it still gives you information if you understand the meanings the number system has.

Re:Really? That's important ? (4, Funny)

RDW (41497) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285900)

"Can someone please explain what is the difference between 3.0 and 2.6.40 ?"

Linus: The numbers all go to 3. Look, right across the git repository, 3, 3, 3 and...
Interviewer: Oh, I see. And most kernels go up to 2.6?
Linus: Exactly.
Interviewer: Does that mean it's better? Is it any better?
Linus: Well, it's one better, isn't it? It's not 2. You see, most blokes, you know, will be running 2.x. You're on 2.6 here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on 2.6 on your computer. Where can you go from there? Where?
Interviewer: I don't know.
Linus: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Interviewer: Compile it up to 3.
Linus: 3. Exactly. One better.
Interviewer: Why don't you just make 2.6 better and make 2.6 be the top number and make that a little better?
Linus: [pause] These go to 3.

The problem with incremental version numbers (4, Insightful)

isorox (205688) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285596)

There's never been a large enough jump in features to justify a major release increment, yet 2.6.40 is more distinct from 2.6.0 than 2.6.0 was from 2.0.0

Re:The problem with incremental version numbers (5, Insightful)

Tar-Alcarin (1325441) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285736)

There's never been a large enough jump in features to justify a major release increment, yet 2.6.40 is more distinct from 2.6.0 than 2.6.0 was from 2.0.0

I think that's part of the reasoning behind this; it's just time to reset the bar.
If you have hardware or software that advertises itself as being "linux 2.6 compliant" today, it could still be up to 7 years old, and not give a damn about features added since then.

Wow (1)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285604)

Duke Nukem Forever, Linux 3.0... what is this world coming to?

Re:Wow (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285616)

I'll believe it once 2023 comes and goes with no extension of the term of U.S. copyright in works made for hire.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285812)

Dogs and cats living together??

Re:Wow (1)

FunPika (1551249) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285864)

Don't worry, Episode 3 or Half Life 3 have yet to be given a release date, we are not COMPLETELY fucked yet.

Version numbers? We can increment them! (5, Informative)

MasterPatricko (1414887) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285610)

I like his 3.0 commit message [kernel.org]
"Version numbers? We can increment them!"

Thankfully, Linus hasn't rewritten the kernel in VB [lkml.org].

Also this version has codename "Sneaky Weasel"

--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
-VERSION = 2
-PATCHLEVEL = 6
-SUBLEVEL = 39
-EXTRAVERSION =
-NAME = Flesh-Eating Bats with Fangs
+VERSION = 3
+PATCHLEVEL = 0
+SUBLEVEL = 0
+EXTRAVERSION = -rc1
+NAME = Sneaky Weasel
 

Re:Version numbers? We can increment them! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285744)

Linus is afraid that my prophecy [slashdot.org] from 2005 is coming true, so he's been trying to cheat destiny (as the 3.0 version codename clearly indicates), but it's too late, with this version number jump Linux has jumped the shark. The End is near, brace yourselves.

Linux: the moribund wraith

When Linux kernel hits version 2.8
and you begin to cry,
turn from Linux to BSD
or along with Linux you, too, shall die.

No amount of kernel hacking
can save Linux from demise,
your skills and knowledge are lacking,
which, frankly, is no surprise.

For your kernel is not eternal,
it is a mere toy which will fry
in the blazing flames of glory
of the BSD flags raised high.

With BSD you get diversity,
with BSD you get stability,
with BSD you get security,
with BSD you get performance and tranquility.
Your kung fu is no match for our ability.

Can you hear him sobbing, your beloved Tux?
He knows what's coming and he, too, thinks Linux sucks.

SlashC*****P**

Re:Version numbers? We can increment them! (2)

lxs (131946) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285838)

I won't believe that Linux is dying until Netcraft confirms it.

Re:Version numbers? We can increment them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285840)

BSD Big Shite Dump been wanting to get that across for yonks
 

Re:Version numbers? We can increment them! (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285888)

Change 2.8 to "three". 2.8 doesn't rhyme anyway, three would scan better, and there you go. FTFY.

I know it doesn't really matter but (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285632)

Up to now, Linus had resisted this fad of jumping major version number to get everyone excited - you know, like these software that cycle normally through version 1.0, 1.1, 1.2... at the beginning of their life, then suddenly become v2.0, v3, v6 SE, 8 XL, 9 UltraTurbo when all they are is just minor releases, then eventually run out of credible major version number and just plain look stupid...

Is there a real reason for skipping 2.8 here, or does Linus want to experience the magical three-dot-oh release effect in his lifetime?

Re:I know it doesn't really matter but (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285754)

I think he succeeded at not getting everyone excited. I haven't been excited by a new kernel version in what seems like a decade. Hardware support under Linux is pretty damned mature. I only wish X.org would catch up with support of hybrid graphics.

Better question... (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285820)

> Is there a real reason for skipping 2.8 here

What makes you think there shouldn't be a 2.10.x and 2.12.x?

Moral: Version numbers are just that, numbers. Personally, I would have preferred 11.05 but as long as the Kernel remains healthy, they can start naming it after cereal for all I care.

Sigh. (1, Insightful)

Rennt (582550) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285652)

He really went and did it, eh? Crap. The only thing more annoying then a meaningless bump in version numbers is all the people going to be complaining about how annoying it is.

Re:Sigh. (2, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285702)

There's one more thing worse: the people who complain about how annoying the people who complain about the meaningless bump in version numbers are. Boy those guys are real jerks!

Re:Sigh. (2, Funny)

Rennt (582550) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285762)

I hear ya bud, but do you know what really grinds my gears?!

On second thought - lets just drop it... it's jerks from here to infinity.

Re:Sigh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285836)

Nah, the jerk stops with you.

Re:Sigh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285802)

My god, bunratty, that post annoyed me.

Long-term Support for 2.6.3x? (2)

owlman17 (871857) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285654)

LFS user here. Will 2.6.39 get the LTS treatment just like 2.6.35 down to 2.6.32? Would be nice to have a stable target for years to come. I have a box that's still using 2.6.16 (formerly LTS) and another that's 2.4.37. Moving up from "minor" releases, e.g. from 2.6.35 to 2.6.36 haven't really been as minor as they used to be. They tend to be somewhat nerve-wracking experiences. Personally sticking to 2.6.35 as long I can.

His call (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285666)

Certainly 3.0 will be just the same thing as 2.6.40, but easier to remember.
So 4.0 will be incompatible break with the past, once the time comes.
Well I expected some sort of cleanup, but realistically these days it's not a smart move because there is too much of world's software depending on some obscure features of the kernel.
And for now actually nothing serious enough popped up to justify the ABI breakage.
My support for this.

This gives the impression that 2.6.40 is more (0)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285670)

This gives the impression that 2.6.40 is more than an incremental update. But 2.6.40 is>/b> an incremental update, so IMHO it should have stayed 2.6.40. Renaming it to 3.0 is just so random.

I thought the Linux community wasn't shy of just minor, incremental updates. If it ain't broke don't fix it, don't rock the boat etc. But I guess the marketing mentality somehow, somewhere, has taken over. /looks at Gnome 3.0

Re:This gives the impression that 2.6.40 is more (2)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285740)

But I guess the marketing mentality somehow, somewhere, has taken over. /looks at Gnome 3.0

Gnome 3.0 deserved the update of the major version number because the libraries it depends on have been extensively revised (GTK+ went to version 3.0, for example).

Re:This gives the impression that 2.6.40 is more (4, Insightful)

jareth-0205 (525594) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285816)

But I guess the marketing mentality somehow, somewhere, has taken over.

Hardly. It was already broken, the "2.6" part of the number was completely irrelevant, and whereas it might not bother you, if you're talking about version numbers all day every day, having superfluous data in there will get annoying. So yeah, the "upgrade" is misleading but from now on the version bumps more accurately reflect the scale of change in the kernel.

Anyway, who markets the kernel? Distros are marketed, nobody cares about the kernel who doesn't already know what's going on.

This is far more a case of developers wanting a version number system that makes sense to the current kernel development model than anything else.

Re:This gives the impression that 2.6.40 is more (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285914)

Well, under the current development model "2.6" is essentially static, It's like OS X always remaining OS X rather than move to OS XI, OS XII, OS XIII etc. as there's absolutely no work on a "2.7" branch and probably never will be.

The 2.6.x changes are far bigger than a 0.0.1 change should be, I mean it's the main development release. Making them 0.1 changes is more than reasonable. The stabilization team will get to move up from 4th to 3rd digit so 3.0.3 rather than 2.6.40.3. Simpler, shorter all around.

I thought the Linux community wasn't shy of just minor, incremental updates. If it ain't broke don't fix it, don't rock the boat etc. But I guess the marketing mentality somehow, somewhere, has taken over. /looks at Gnome 3.0

Also are you arguing that Gnome 3 isn't a radical enough departure breaking enough eggs to warrant it's version number? Sounds to me like most people complain it's too different from Gnome 2.x. In this case, you seem to argue Linux 3.0 will be too similar to Linux 2.x. Is there a way to win here?

Annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285680)

Why change the versioning scheme? When you do this, all you do is exchange one set of shortcomings for another with the added benefit of much confusion.

My experience has been that when autocratic lead developers start doing things like this, they are (getting) bored.

Re:Annoying (0)

TheCount22 (952106) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285970)

I was expecting something amazing for 3.0.0 like hard real-time and a micro-kernel. Never did I expect this crap from Linus.

Everyone knows it takes until at least version 3.x (1)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285682)

... where "x" > 0 ... The "unwritten rules":

1. It takes at least until version 3 to get (most of) the bugs out.

2. Any version that ends in point-zero is a disaster - wait until the next point release (DOS 4.0, DOS 6.0, Windows 3.0, KDE 4.0)

3. People will now start asking if this means that this will finally be the year of linux on the desktop.

Architectural changes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285694)

While this appears to be a semantic change (which somewhat irritates me), I hope they use this opportunity to commit some bigger changes that have been on the cards for a while.

Chanes like... (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285724)

Arm cleanup. (who oh who)
Big kernel lock. (recently declared complete)
Really really fast. (top of wish list...)

Re:Chanes like... (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285844)

Moving the GPLv3 would be a smart move...GPLv2 has been broken for years, when did the first tivoized device come out? Security exploits get fixed fast, what about this big licensing exploit?

Why not use dates scheme? (1)

DaKritter (158840) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285700)

linux-2011-06
linux-2011-09
linux-2011-12
etc.

Re:Why not use dates scheme? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285810)

Because it breaks every script that assumes a standard incremental 3-point version number?

Because it eliminates any possibility of inferring the magnitude of the change from the version number by eliminating the major/minor/sub heirarchy?

Because what's wrong with counting?

Re:Why not use dates scheme? (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285872)

But it's.. it's... it's... AGILE! (Or something, for some reason those who jump on every new trend and who have been screaming about "agile" development even where it doesn't make any sense have also thrown themselves at replacing version numbers with either dates or funny names for their releases, only thing worse than that is the ever classic "The fix is in CVS/Just grab it from the repo" answer from project maintainers too lazy to make a new release on at least a yearly basis)

Broken version checks (1)

grahammm (9083) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285712)

I wonder how many broken build & configure scripts and runtime version checks will fail because they do not check the major version number.

Re:Broken version checks (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285974)

Well, that's what the developers get for shitty coding practices, and that's what the users get for relying on software written by (an) idiot(s).

But does it run Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285714)

Oh, right... Sorry.

When new numbers meant new features (1, Informative)

La Gris (531858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285718)

When Linux 2.0 release june, 9 1996 was the first stable complete workable versatile version.
As of January, 25 1999 Linux 2.2, many new distro was available to average user.
January, 4 2001 Linux 2.4 introduced many device changes. There are still so much embeded devices running the 2.4 kernel.
Decembre, 17 2003 Linux 2.6 stabilized and enhanced changes from 2.4, introduced the fully able IPv6 stack.

Now the 3.0 Linux branch is just plain about shiny numbering.

Re:When new numbers meant new features (1)

The One KEA (707661) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285814)

If you read Linus' thoughts on the subject of numbering, he has stated numerous times that the Linux development process has moved so far beyond "new version = new features" that forcing it back into that paradigm for Linux 3.0 is broken. He believes instead that "new version = some time has passed + some new feature may be included". The fact that Linux 3.0 will be finalized and released very close to the 20th anniversary of the first Linux kernel is just a bonus.

Re:When new numbers meant new features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285946)

The fact that Linux 3.0 will be finalized and released very close to the 20th anniversary of the first Linux kernel is just a bonus.

From TFA, quoting Linus:
I decided to just bite the bullet, and call the next version 3.0. It will get released close enough to the 20-year mark, which is excuse enough for me, although honestly, the real reason is just that I can no longer comfortably count as high as 40.

So yeah, you're right, it is a serendipitous occasion.
Luckily Linux isn't about to turn 40, who knows what numbering scheme Linus would've come up with then.

Re:When new numbers meant new features (3, Insightful)

jareth-0205 (525594) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285846)

Now the 3.0 Linux branch is just plain about shiny numbering.

Yup, and is all the better for it. What you don't mention in your list is the fact that the development model changed in 2.6, from a break-> stabilise->break-> stabilise model to one of continuous stable development. The version number system stayed the same, which suggests the same development process of stabilisation with no new features, so this is a newer system that fixes that.

Re:When new numbers meant new features (1)

bregmata (1749266) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285868)

When Linux 2.0 release june, 9 1996 was the first stable complete workable versatile version.
As of January, 25 1999 Linux 2.2, many new distro was available to average user.
January, 4 2001 Linux 2.4 introduced many device changes. There are still so much embeded devices running the 2.4 kernel.
Decembre, 17 2003 Linux 2.6 stabilized and enhanced changes from 2.4, introduced the fully able IPv6 stack.

May 2011, Linux 3.0 is delivered to celebrate the year of the Linux Desktop.

Re:When new numbers meant new features (5, Informative)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285940)

Oh really...

What about removal of the big kernel lock?
What about plug-in resource schedulers?
What about fast ip locking?
What about kernel video mode switching?
What about systemtap?
What about cgroups?
And much more...

When taken in combination, the growth of the Linux kernel since 2003 definitely warrants a major jump.

The issue is whether it should be 2.8 or 3.0. I would side with 3.0.

Because Linux is now ready for serious MP, both on a local and a cluster level. And these features are not "backwards portable".

Re:When new numbers meant new features (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285954)

Now the 3.0 Linux branch is just plain about shiny numbering.

Some other people who have posted comments to the topic appear to think that the big change warranting a shiny number is the loss of the Big Kernel Lock in the 2.6 series, which ordinarily would have been done in a 2.7 series before Linus decided not to use a 2.7.

No changes in 3.0 (1)

Estevao (1697642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285766)

There will be no significant changes or magic features in 3.0, it's _just_ a rename... but why? Linus said that 40 is a big enough to deal with, just like that.

Re:No changes in 3.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285860)

He's hoping to cash in as he can see that Linux really has hit it's high water mark and he realizes the future for him and his ilk is bleak.

Odd version numbers (3, Insightful)

OoberMick (674746) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285788)

My understanding is that the jump to 3.0 is simply that they no longer want to have the second digit even means stable and odd means unstable versioning any more. So rather than going to 2.7.0 and having everyone assume it's unstable or skipping 2.7.0 and going straight to 2.8.0 just to maintain an old and unused version system, they have went with 3.0.

Waste of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285796)

This is clearly a waste of time. Changing numbers just for the sake of changing numbers.

The argument Linus gave for the change is something you would be fired for where I work. Forty is too big a number ?????? What?!

Time for a change (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285824)

This is a complete outrage. Not only will it require extensive re-testing but distros will need to change as well.

I believe it's time for us to fork the GNU/Linux kernel to a more appropriate versioning scheme, while removing all non-libre blobs at the same time. Only then can we depose this dictator Torvalds and his pro-capitalist kernel.

"Sneaky Weasel" (0)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285828)

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 529d93f..afb8e0d 100644 (file)
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
-VERSION = 2
-PATCHLEVEL = 6
-SUBLEVEL = 39
-EXTRAVERSION =
-NAME = Flesh-Eating Bats with Fangs
+VERSION = 3
+PATCHLEVEL = 0
+SUBLEVEL = 0
+EXTRAVERSION = -rc1
+NAME = Sneaky Weasel

Read Linus on Linux Kernal Message (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285854)

He explains it all. If you don't have a clue about the subject then shut the fack up.

I'm more concerned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285892)

about Linux ME.

Waste of time (1)

TheCount22 (952106) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285896)

Changing numbers just to change numbers is a waste of time. The reasoning Linus gives for the change is absolutely worthless. He can't count to 40. what!? Where I work you would get fired for something like this.

This wastes everyones time and causes unnecessary confusion. If at least he said something like "It makes people talk about Linux" or "We wanted to celebrate our good work by tagging 3.0" I might have accepted the reasoning. I think the features between 2.6.40 and 3.0.0 have not earned the 3.0.0 badge.

If Linux kernels had microsoft names (4, Funny)

shoppa (464619) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285910)

If linux kernels had microsoft marketing setting the names, we wouldn't have decimal points etc.

It would be "Linux NT", "Linux 95", "Linux Server 2003", "Linux XP", "Linux Vista", "Linux 7".

Just think how much more marketable Linux could be and how much more the suits would want to buy it.

Tablets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36285918)

Since Android 3.0, WebOS 3.0 and iOS 3.2 were tablet operating systems, does that mean???

I for one welcome the bump in ver # (3, Informative)

McNihil (612243) | more than 2 years ago | (#36285930)

IMHO it should have been done back with 2.6.19 or no later than 2.6.25. Better late than never though.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...