Beta
×

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!

Linux Kernel 3.0?

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the cuz-2.x-is-just-stale-now dept.

Linux 369

An anonymous reader writes "A discussion on the Linux kernel mailing list between Linux creator Linus Torvalds, Linux guru Ingo Molnar, and a few others debated the name of the upcoming stable kernel release. The choices: 2.6 or 3.0. Evidently there's been enough improvements, most notably the VM, that they're leaning towards calling it 3.0..."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Firm Peckar (-1)

CmdrStkFjta (565570) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353517)

for you. thanks

Mirror? (0)

fire-eyes (522894) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353527)

Any mirrors? Not responding.

Re:Mirror? (1, Informative)

octalc0de (601035) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353556)

I can't seem to post anonymous anymore, to prevent karma whore. P'haps it's my BAD karma resulting from one post.

Google Archive of the threads [google.com]

Re:Mirror? (1, Informative)

octalc0de (601035) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353564)

oopsies, Thread 2 [google.com]

sure, why not.... (0)

Cnik70 (571147) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353528)

roll the dice, pick a number.... 3.0 does sound like a good choice though since it may finally define a new starting point for the kernel since it has elvolved much since the 2.2 days.

uhhh... (1)

dolby2 (196255) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353530)

What about 2.8???

Re:uhhh... (2)

Angry White Guy (521337) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353594)

We all know what happened when Leisure Suit Larry skipped a number...It was chaos to all the sex-starved cyber geeks. Go 3 or go home!

guru? (1)

Karamchand (607798) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353532)

An "ordinary" kernel hacker is not the same as a guru... please think about it. btw: Link works for me, i.e. isn't down.

Re:guru? (1)

kasperd (592156) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353800)

An "ordinary" kernel hacker is not the same as a guru.

Being the author of the scheduler makes him more than an ordinary kernel hacker.

Consumer Marketing (4, Funny)

brad3378 (155304) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353537)

To a consumer, 3.0 sounds like a better product than 2.6

My vote would be to make it Linux 10.0 to make it compatible with the SuSe & mandrake number systems. :-)

Re:Consumer Marketing (4, Insightful)

no soup for you (607826) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353593)

To a consumer, 3.0 sounds like a better product than 2.6
My vote would be to make it Linux 10.0 to make it compatible with the SuSe & mandrake number systems. :-)
In my opinion a consumer will never notice the kernel version number. They'll see the distribution version numbers, but won't bother to check which kernel the system is using -- because to do so would mean they'd have to understand that a kernel existed in the first place.

Re:Consumer Marketing (1, Interesting)

Pros_n_Cons (535669) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353746)

When I go to CompUSA or the like and I see a RedHat box set sitting there with a stamp on it that says "New Kernel 2.6! " I (as an average consumer) say okay cool but If I see 3.0 I think this must be a larger than usual upgrade. The rest of us in the know are not going to think oh no its a 3.x release so it must be buggy cause its not an even number, we'll know its an addon to 2.4. so whats the big deal. call it the new "Longhorn Linux Kernel" for All I care but I bet it would sell more boxes. Where is the rule that we cant try and sell people linux? why is that so f*cking wrong?!

Consumer marketing is irrelevant to the kernel (4, Insightful)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353669)

To a consumer, 3.0 sounds like a better product than 2.6

The Linux kernel alone is not a consumer product.

By itself, it is not very useful, but when you bundle it with a couple of hundred other utilities, applications and environments and call it a distribution, the distribution becomes a consumer product. When you strip it bare and embed it into a device, the device becomes a consumer product. When you load it onto a general purpose computer and call it an appliance, the appliance becomes a consumer product.

When it comes to the kernel, there is no need for consumer level marketing trickery.

Re:Consumer Marketing (0, Redundant)

Mattsson (105422) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353716)

Mouahahaha!
Linux XP!

And then.... (5, Funny)

WilliamsDA (567274) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353540)

on to 3.11! Oops!

Re:And then.... (5, Funny)

br0ck (237309) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353559)

..and then progress to Linux 95, Linux 98, LiNTux, Linux 2000, LinuXP and then *drum roll* Li.NET? :P

Re:And then.... (5, Funny)

archen (447353) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353587)

Microsoft = .NET
Apple = .MAC
Linux = .TUX

excuse me, but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353614)

...it's
gnu/Linux 95
gnu/Linux 98
gnu/LiNTux
gnu/Linux 2000
gnu/LinuXP
and gnu/Li.NET :)

Re:And then.... (2)

snake_dad (311844) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353725)

and then *drum roll* Li.NET?

.NetNux Copyright 2002 Snake_dad

:-)

Re:And then.... (0)

Cnik70 (571147) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353573)

could be worse, could be Linux XP

Linux: 2.6 vs. 3.0; What's In A Name? (1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353543)

A recent lkml thread explored an interesting tangent when Jeff Garzik asked about what was to follow the 2.5 development kernel, "is it definitely to be named 2.6? Maybe it's just my impression from development speed, but it felt more like a 3.0 to me :)". Linux creator Linus Torvalds first suggested that there was no reason to skip from 2.5 to 3.0, qualifying it with, "But hey, it's just a number. I don't feel that strongly either way."

Ingo Molnar reflected on the significant improvements we've seen to the VM and the IO subsystem, going so far as to say, "I think due to these improvements if we dont call the next kernel 3.0 then probably no Linux kernel in the future will deserve a major number. In 2-4 years we'll only jump to 3.0 because there's no better number available after 2.8."

Linus agreed that if the VM is as good as it seems to be, indeed the upcoming release deserves to be called 3.0. But he also pointed out that there are many silent users who tend not to speak up until there is an official release. He asks, "people who are having VM trouble with the current 2.5.x series, please _complain_, and tell what your workload is. Don't sit silent and make us think we're good to go.. And if Ingo is right, I'll do the 3.0.x thing."

From: Linus Torvalds
Subject: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:07:06 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> no need to be mindful of that.
>
> Let's get it right, rather than rush it...

Which imples that it's 2.7 material.

For 2.6.x I care about getting the drivers _working_.

The whole logging discussion with hardened drivers etc is _not_ adding
value to normal people until much much later, and it sound very much to me
like one of those patch sets that some vendors will care about deeply
because they have some big company that cares and pays them.

Those kinds of patch-sets sometimes never make it into the standard
kernel. They have to prove their worth to real people first, and I could
care less (but not much) about paperwork reasons.

Linus

From: Jeff Garzik
Subject: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:27:59 -0400

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> For 2.6.x I care about getting the drivers _working_.

Tangent question, is it definitely to be named 2.6?

Maybe it's just my impression from development speed, but it felt more
like a 3.0 to me :)

Jeff

From: Linus Torvalds
Subject: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:45:51 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > For 2.6.x I care about getting the drivers _working_.
>
> Tangent question, is it definitely to be named 2.6?

I see no real reason to call it 3.0.

The order-of-magnitude threading improvements might just come closest to
being a "new thing", but yeah, I still consider it 2.6.x. We don't have
new architectures or other really fundamental stuff. In many ways the jump
from 2.2 -> 2.4 was bigger than the 2.4 -> 2.6 thing will be, I suspect.

But hey, it's just a number. I don't feel that strongly either way. I
think version number inflation (can anybody say "distribution makers"?) is
a bit silly, and the way the kernel numbering works there is no reason to
bump the major number for regular releases.

Linus

From: Ingo Molnar
Subject: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:46:35 +0200 (CEST)

On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Tangent question, is it definitely to be named 2.6?
>
> I see no real reason to call it 3.0.
>
> The order-of-magnitude threading improvements might just come closest to
> being a "new thing", but yeah, I still consider it 2.6.x. We don't have
> new architectures or other really fundamental stuff. In many ways the
> jump from 2.2 -> 2.4 was bigger than the 2.4 -> 2.6 thing will be, I
> suspect.

i consider the VM and IO improvements one of the most important things
that happened in the past 5 years - and it's definitely something that
users will notice. Finally we have a top-notch VM and IO subsystem (in
addition to the already world-class networking subsystem) giving
significant improvements both on the desktop and the server - the jump
from 2.4 to 2.5 is much larger than from eg. 2.0 to 2.4.

I think due to these improvements if we dont call the next kernel 3.0 then
probably no Linux kernel in the future will deserve a major number. In 2-4
years we'll only jump to 3.0 because there's no better number available
after 2.8. That i consider to be ... boring :) [while kernel releases are
supposed to be a bit boring, i dont think they should be _that_ boring.]

Ingo

From: jw schultz
Subject: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 02:16:34 -0700

On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 09:46:35AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > Tangent question, is it definitely to be named 2.6?
> >
> > I see no real reason to call it 3.0.
> >
> > The order-of-magnitude threading improvements might just come closest to
> > being a "new thing", but yeah, I still consider it 2.6.x. We don't have
> > new architectures or other really fundamental stuff. In many ways the
> > jump from 2.2 -> 2.4 was bigger than the 2.4 -> 2.6 thing will be, I
> > suspect.
>
> i consider the VM and IO improvements one of the most important things
> that happened in the past 5 years - and it's definitely something that
> users will notice. Finally we have a top-notch VM and IO subsystem (in
> addition to the already world-class networking subsystem) giving
> significant improvements both on the desktop and the server - the jump
> from 2.4 to 2.5 is much larger than from eg. 2.0 to 2.4.
>
> I think due to these improvements if we dont call the next kernel 3.0 then
> probably no Linux kernel in the future will deserve a major number. In 2-4
> years we'll only jump to 3.0 because there's no better number available
> after 2.8. That i consider to be ... boring :) [while kernel releases are
> supposed to be a bit boring, i dont think they should be _that_ boring.]
>

Ingo, I agree with Linus. My recollection of when we moved
to 2.0 was that the major number reflected the userkernel
ABI. I have no problem with a version 2.42 if things stay
stable that long. I hope they don't but that is another
issue.

Version 3.0 implies incompatibility with binaries from 2.x
The distributions can play around with version numbers
reflecting the GUI interface, libraries or installers but
the kernel major version should stay the same until binary
compatibility is broken. When we move old syscalls (such as
32 bit file ops) from deprecated to unsupported is when we
increment the major number.

It may be that 2.7 will see the cruft cut out and be the end
of 2.x but 2.5 isn't that. So far 2.5 is performance
enhancement. Terrific performance enhancement, thanks to you
and many others. But it isn't adding major new features nor
is it removing old interfaces. In many ways 2.6 looks like
a sign that the 2.x kernel is getting mature. 2.6 means
users can expect improvements but don't have to make big changes.
2.6 is an upgrade, 3.0 would be a replacement.

--
________________________________________________ __ ______________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: [email blocked]

Remember Cernan and Schmitt

From: Horst von Brand
Subject: Kernel version [Was: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver]
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:40:22 -0400

Ingo Molnar said:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > Tangent question, is it definitely to be named 2.6?
> >
> > I see no real reason to call it 3.0.
> >
> > The order-of-magnitude threading improvements might just come closest to
> > being a "new thing", but yeah, I still consider it 2.6.x. We don't have
> > new architectures or other really fundamental stuff. In many ways the
> > jump from 2.2 -> 2.4 was bigger than the 2.4 -> 2.6 thing will be, I
> > suspect.
>
> i consider the VM and IO improvements one of the most important things
> that happened in the past 5 years - and it's definitely something that
> users will notice. Finally we have a top-notch VM and IO subsystem (in
> addition to the already world-class networking subsystem) giving
> significant improvements both on the desktop and the server - the jump
> from 2.4 to 2.5 is much larger than from eg. 2.0 to 2.4.

But is is as large as the jump from 1.2.x to 2.0.x?

> I think due to these improvements if we dont call the next kernel 3.0 then
> probably no Linux kernel in the future will deserve a major number. In 2-4
> years we'll only jump to 3.0 because there's no better number available
> after 2.8. That i consider to be ... boring :) [while kernel releases are
> supposed to be a bit boring, i dont think they should be _that_ boring.]

What is wrong with 2.10, or 2.256 for that matter?
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +[blocked]
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +[blocked]
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +[blocked]

From: Linus Torvalds
Subject: Re: v2.6 vs v3.0
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 18:31:45 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> i consider the VM and IO improvements one of the most important things
> that happened in the past 5 years - and it's definitely something that
> users will notice. Finally we have a top-notch VM and IO subsystem (in
> addition to the already world-class networking subsystem) giving
> significant improvements both on the desktop and the server - the jump
> from 2.4 to 2.5 is much larger than from eg. 2.0 to 2.4.

Hey, _if_ people actually are universally happy with the VM in the current
2.5.x tree, I'll happily call the dang thing 5.0 or whatever (just
kidding, but yeah, that would be a good enough reason to bump the major
number).

However, I'll believe that when I see it. Usually people don't complain
during a development kernel, because they think they shouldn't, and then
when it becomes stable (ie when the version number changes) they are
surprised that the behabviour didn't magically improve, and _then_ we get
tons of complaints about how bad the VM is under their load.

Am I hapyy with current 2.5.x? Sure. Are others? Apparently. But does
that mean that we have a top-notch VM and we should bump the major number?
I wish.

The block IO cleanups are important, and that was the major thing _I_
personally wanted from the 2.5.x tree when it was opened. I agree with you
there. But I don't think they are major-number-material.

Anyway, people who are having VM trouble with the current 2.5.x series,
please _complain_, and tell what your workload is. Don't sit silent and
make us think we're good to go.. And if Ingo is right, I'll do the 3.0.x
thing.

Linus

Re:Linux: 2.6 vs. 3.0; What's In A Name? (2)

dzym (544085) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353783)

We can't have VM problems until we can actually compile the kernel. Why have a 2.5.x release if it doesn't even compile?

No we should call it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353549)

Linux 3.1

That way people will know that linux is as good as windows 3.1 was.

Then we start work on Linux NT.

Re:No we should call it (1)

dolby2 (196255) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353553)

I can't wait for linux ME, that'll be the kernel I die with, stable, no bugs... heh

Stupid, stupid, stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353550)

They should call it Linux 2003 to beat Microsoft.

Why not use Microsoft's versioning system? (5, Funny)

Tsar (536185) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353551)

  • 3.1 = Universal Beta
  • 4.0 = First stable release
  • 5.0 = Last stable release
  • XP = DRM-crip^H^H^H^Hdifferently-abled release

Re:Why not use Microsoft's versioning system? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353561)

Why be a naive fucking moron? You will never be able to answer the question that I have posed.

Re:Why not use Microsoft's versioning system? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353620)

Why be a naive fucking moron?

1. Why be a naive moron
2. Why be a fucking moron
3. Why be a niave fucking moron

1: I was raised in a sheltered enviroment, and have always been naive for it. I disagree with the accusation of being a moron, as I clearly have a mental age of 47 according to IQ tests.
2: While I still disagree with your assesment of mental age, I would say that it is better to be in the state of having sex than it to not be.
3: Because as I noted above I was raised to be naive, I much enjoy fucking, and I am clearly not a moron.

I have answered the question, therefore your statment is false. You do not exist, thank you and good bye.

Definitions --

moron Pronunciation Key (môrn, mr-)

A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

fuck Pronunciation Key (fk) Vulgar Slang
v. fucked, fucking, fucks
v. tr.
To have sexual intercourse with.

Re:Why not use Microsoft's versioning system? (1)

fluor2 (242824) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353723)

Red Hat 2003 Pro
Red Hat 2003 Home
Red Hat 2003 .COM server
with advanced B2B ME KCPD

Comments by Linus (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353554)

On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > i consider the VM and IO improvements one of the most important things
> that happened in the past 5 years - and it's definitely something that
> users will notice. Finally we have a top-notch VM and IO subsystem (in
> addition to the already world-class networking subsystem) giving
> significant improvements both on the desktop and the server - the jump
> from 2.4 to 2.5 is much larger than from eg. 2.0 to 2.4.

Hey, _if_ people actually are universally happy with the VM in the current
2.5.x tree, I'll happily call the dang thing 5.0 or whatever (just
kidding, but yeah, that would be a good enough reason to bump the major
number).

However, I'll believe that when I see it. Usually people don't complain
during a development kernel, because they think they shouldn't, and then
when it becomes stable (ie when the version number changes) they are
surprised that the behabviour didn't magically improve, and _then_ we get
tons of complaints about how bad the VM is under their load.

Am I hapyy with current 2.5.x? Sure. Are others? Apparently. But does
that mean that we have a top-notch VM and we should bump the major number?
I wish.

The block IO cleanups are important, and that was the major thing _I_
personally wanted from the 2.5.x tree when it was opened. I agree with you
there. But I don't think they are major-number-material.

Anyway, people who are having VM trouble with the current 2.5.x series,
please _complain_, and tell what your workload is. Don't sit silent and
make us think we're good to go.. And if Ingo is right, I'll do the 3.0.x
thing.

Linus

Re:Comments by Linus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353791)

Cool.. straight from the horses mouth! Though you do have this habit of _underlining_ everything :)

Re:Comments by Linus (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353803)

how is this informative when the only thing he did was copy/paste what was _ALREADY_ in the article, which you are supposed to read if you are going to comment?

It's all marketing (3, Insightful)

SexyKellyOsbourne (606860) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353563)

Though some of the improvements may have been a real boost (the O(1) scheduler, etc), the decision to call it "3.0" won't come until some serious marketing decisions are made.

Linux is not an underground system anymore -- it is a competitor in a business market and means billions of dollars to people and businesses, as unsuccessful [yahoo.com] as they may be.

Calling the kernel 3.0 is just a name, a marketing strategy, that will give the idea to people who aren't in the know that something truly significant and revolutionary has happened.

There's clearly a war going on between the idealists and the realists in that mailing list, and a simple number like "3.0" can make or break millions of dollars.

Re:It's all marketing (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353567)

can make or break millions of dollars.

None of which will end up in the developers' pockets, so the whole point is actually moot. I hope they call it 2.6 just to piss the money people and suits off.

Re:It's all marketing (3, Insightful)

Christopher Thomas (11717) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353595)

Calling the kernel 3.0 is just a name, a marketing strategy, that will give the idea to people who aren't in the know that something truly significant and revolutionary has happened.

Actually, those people are already given warm fuzzies by the distribution version numbers. Non-geeks really wouldn't pay attention to the kernel version number, doubly so since it wouldn't have any _visible_ impact on the system's behavior.

Re:It's all marketing (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353673)

Are you kidding? I tried to get a lot of people to migrate to Linux when the 2.4 kernels just started coming out. The first thing most of them read about Linux when they were looking up information on it was that the 2.4 kernel was riddled with stability problems, and that the only solution for many of them was to just stick with 2.2 for now; which probably read in plain English to them as "2.4 doesn't work, use the old version until it does." People DO pay a significant amount of attention to the numbering alone, I can only imagine what would happen to Red Hat et. al. if 3.0 came out with as many problems as the initial releases of 2.4.

Re:It's all marketing (2)

garcia (6573) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353678)

I don't really agree.

First of all, most people (that care about Linux marketing) are only interested in the names of the distributions. How many times have I heard "Where can I download Linux 7.2" or "Linux 8.1". Most have no idea what the difference is between the distribution and the kernel.

Second, those that are paying attention to kernel versions are not likely to give two shits what the numbers are. 2.6 is going to be the same as 3.0 for me. Just another version.

Finally, I haven't run anything in 2.5 yet. I don't see any major reason to upgrade to it... Sure the VM is supposedly better, there are other enhacements, but nothing that would make me consider this a major leap (if I am not about to upgrade to it, what's to say that it is revolutionary, and believe me, I am into bleeding edge.)

Re:It's all marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353753)

Yahoo.com owns your ass you little ho.

Re:It's all marketing (0)

Pros_n_Cons (535669) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353823)

Why do so many of you think marketing something is evil? Look how far the IBM marketing has helped Linux. Now we have things like DOOMIII, drivers being writen by venders, its in schools, governments, cash registers. Everyone knows about it, I know IBM isn't even remotly the only one helping but try and tell me all these "buzz words" haven't helped. People in high places now think linux when throwing around business solutions cause b4 only us tech geeks said "check out linux" but we know they dont listen to us, they listen to commercials and what large companies do it too. Things like fresh new 3.0 kernel! or new Longhorn kernel stamped on SuSe, RedHat, Mandrake, just sound better on a box set at the store than does "new 2.6.2-12 kernel".

Waiting... (1)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353565)

Me use 3.0.0 Yea right! Tell us when 3.0.10 comes out, until then, noone cares.

Linux 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353566)

Linux 3 sounds... odd.

I can see it now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353568)

Debian 3.1
With KDE 3.1
And Kernel 3.0

Re:I can see it now (3, Funny)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353646)

Yeah right..

2005-03-28: Debian 3.1 is released!
It includes the advanced Linux 2.4.8-kernel, KDE 2.2.1 and
four year old versions of another 20000 or so packages.
Get it here!

Re:I can see it now (2)

Second_Derivative (257815) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353663)

Debian might be slow with releases but I hope they're not going to go backwards. I'm typing this under KDE 2.2.2 and Linux 2.4.18, both came from binary packages straight from Woody.

As Shakespeare said (more or less) (5, Funny)

rknop (240417) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353570)

A rose by any other name would still have thorns.

Re:As Shakespeare said (more or less) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353579)

wtf?

"That which we
call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet"

What's this business about thorns and such?

Re:As Shakespeare said (more or less) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353621)

Come on. Its a joke. Hes trying to imply that Linux is more thorny than sweet smelling. Get it? ?? ??

Re:As Shakespeare said (more or less) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353771)

That's funny for those with a braindead sense of humor.

Hey, (1)

chainrust (610064) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353574)

Kernel 3.0 already has info available here [bash.org] .

Testing 2.5 (5, Interesting)

crazney (194622) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353576)

Linus said:

--
Linus agreed that if the VM is as good as it seems to be, indeed the upcoming release deserves to be called 3.0. But he also pointed out that there are many silent users who tend not to speak up until there is an official release. He asks, "people who are having VM trouble with the current 2.5.x series, please _complain_, and tell what your workload is. Don't sit silent and make us think we're good to go.. And if Ingo is right, I'll do the 3.0.x thing."
---

So does this mean that us semi-power users should be going ahead and testing the 2.5 kernel? If so to what degree.. Should we be running 2.5 on our desktop boxes? What about video drivers (nvidia) and all that?... When does it actually get into the 'testing' time frame, hence things start to become stable?

Cheers

craz

Re:Testing 2.5 (1)

Mads-Martin (82002) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353747)

2.5 is definately desktop stable, so the more people testing it, would be good.

Re:Testing 2.5 (4, Informative)

Webmonger (24302) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353827)

The 'testing' time frame-- probably the closest thing to that is the planned Oct 31 feature freeze. After that, the focus should be on getting it into a releaseable state.

Nice idea.. 3.0 is cool BUT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353577)

Now that Madelyne Toogood is free in society, does anybody know when she'll be making her first amateur porn?

Maybe I'm not the only one thinking of her in this way ? ................

Take a lesson from emacs here (3, Interesting)

big.ears (136789) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353578)

Emacs adheres religiously to the maxim of only bumping up the release number for really major changes (i.e., those that created backwards incompatibility.). Consequently, they are on point release 21 or something--they have dropped the initial 1. or 2. because it apparently seemed redundant.

Re:Take a lesson from emacs here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353619)

For most software versions are more of a marketing ploy more than anything, which is probably a holdover from the tech boom. Both linux and emacs are on the wrong side. Most people think of a version number and a "point something". AOL 7.0 - right, like AOL really improved anything that much. NT 4.0 is STILL NT4.0 despite the fact that most recent software REQUIRES a recent service pack. If a change is required in the OS to run something, that would inferr that the version should not still be 4.0

Windows NT 4.0.7 (3, Interesting)

yerricde (125198) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353766)

NT 4.0 is STILL NT4.0 despite the fact that most recent software REQUIRES a recent service pack.

I've taken up calling Microsoft service packs by major.minor.servicepack. Therefore, Windows NT 4 is up to 4.0.7, Windows 2000 is up to 5.0.3, and Windows XP is up to 5.1.1. Currently maintained IE versions are 5.5.2 (?) and 6.0.1.

Re:Take a lesson from emacs here (2, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353628)

Uhh

they have dropped the initial 1. or 2. because it apparently seemed redundant.

I think you are arguing against yourself here. Wouldn't the situation be the same if they just called it Emacs 21.0, since the major has become irrelevant?

The minor has become the de facto major, is what I am trying to say. Their strict adherance to not incrementing the major has accomplished the opposite of what they wanted.

No.. (1)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353763)

The point is that emacs is still emacs.

It's version 1.21 now, but we just call it '21'.

Re:Take a lesson from emacs here (1)

james_underscore (468915) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353686)

The linux kernel doesn't really have a concept of backwards compatibility like most software does though. AFAIK, no-one has ever removed a driver from linux, so old hardware keeps working.

IMO, the 3 part numbering system is a little redundant in Linux now - mostly a legacy of when it was a little more appropriate. It would be just as well of with two numbers making up the version. The "major" version number at the front is of little consequence really.

But, as Linus said, its just a number. I seriously doubt it has big marketing implications, because it doesn't matter at that level what the version number is (think about it - glibc2 can also be called libc6, but mostly people use glibc2, because its hardly going to sell the OS better if the C library has a bigger version number). Leave the version inflation up to the distros.

Still, I say call it 3.0 just cause I like it and it doesn't matter ;)

Re:Take a lesson from emacs here (2)

peripatetic_bum (211859) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353775)

You know, dropping the initial 1. or 2. seems like a marketing thing since the point release like 20 or 21 then give the impression (true or false) that emacs is 21.* or something,

Thanks
G

Change of alphanumeric scheme (1)

DJ Uptime (584555) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353581)

I agree that Linux is pretty 1337, but what happened to versions 4, B, before they go to version 3?

Re:Change of alphanumeric scheme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353719)

You are making absolutely no sense.

Hm (2)

gTsiros (205624) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353584)

Here's my idea...
I've heard that the 2.2 kernel was very very stable. Now, one could say that:

#1 from 2.2 -> 2.6, we improve stability (since we're taking the 2.x codebase and improving on it) and refrain from adding too many new features.

#2 from 2.2 -> 3.0, we are expected to lose some stability, since this is a *new* codebase (it is a newer version, right? not an improvement like the #1 case) and see more new features.

but personaly, i don't care what you call it. Call it version 3.1337 or whatever...it's still the newer Linux ("Linux kernel" is redundant).

just my thoughts.

Re:Hm (5, Funny)

tuxedo-steve (33545) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353605)

...it's still the newer Linux ("Linux kernel" is redundant).
I'm pretty sure that RMS hates you.

Re:Hm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353692)

Actually I'm pretty sure RMS would like him. Saying "Linux kernel" implies that the OS is Linux and it has its own kernel.

"Linux kernel" because it's a trademark (5, Insightful)

yerricde (125198) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353786)

"Linux kernel" is redundant

No. Under USA trademark law, product and brand names are adjectives and should be followed by a generic noun. Thus, "Linux kernel", "Windows operating system", "Mac OS", "Macintosh computer", "Kleenex tissue", "SPAM luncheon meat", "Xerox copier", etc.

Why dont you go with the hurds numbering system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353600)

And call it 0.3

My complaint about Linus Torvalds (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353604)

Linus Torvalds's stances require a two-part response: first, a clarification of the prognosis implied by my previous letter; and second, a commentary on Linus's own prognoses. I would like to start by discussing Linus's proposed social programs, mainly because they scare me. The thing I'm the most frightened about is that tasteless porn stars (like Linus) are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, it would be wrong to imply that Linus is involved in some kind of conspiracy to supply the chains that bind the individual to notions of self-loathing and unworthiness. It would be wrong because his ballyhoos are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but he is typical of gloomy yahoos in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his propositions. I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that Linus apparently wants to use us to fulfill his indecent mission. What I mean is that if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance.

Last I checked, he wants nothing less than to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly apolaustic ways to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era. His underlings then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with pretentious airheads who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that I have to laugh when Linus says that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. Where in the world did he get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but in a larger context, his delirious analects remind us that acts of demagogism continue in our midst. Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is that Linus is absolutely determined to believe that it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about his publicity stunts, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way. If you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. In light of what I just stated, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that by preventing people from seeing that the real problem is the complexity of a changing national and world economy, Linus's vicegerents can ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. At the risk of repeating myself, I must reiterate that Linus claims that his words won't be used for political retribution. I respond that you shouldn't take threats made by raucous fence-sitters too seriously.

All I can tell you is what matters to me: If you don't think that he has a deficiency of real goals, then think again. Linus's policies occasionally differ in terms of how incoherent can they are, but generally share one fundamental tendency: They justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of Linus's heart. We must advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence. If we don't, future generations will not know freedom. Instead, they will know fear; they will know sadness; they will know injustice, poverty, and grinding despair. Most of all, they will realize, albeit far too late, that Linus is out to get on my nerves. And when we play his game, we become accomplices.

If you've never seen him prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself. I don't care what others say about Linus. He's still unrestrained, subhuman, and he intends to do the devil's work. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that we can divide his ravings into three categories: nasty, brutish, and primitive. (The merits of Linus's activities won't be discussed here, because they lack merit.) The destructive power of Linus's fairy tales is their appeal to the stuck-up, the quasi-unstable, the fickle, and the postmodernist. But the problems with Linus's fibs don't end there. There are some crude ignoramuses who are lawless. There are also some who are dirty. Which category does Linus fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".

Although the dialectics of tribalism-prone praxis will create an untrue and injurious impression of an entire people by the next full moon, when he was first found trying to conceal information and, occasionally, blatantly lie, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Linus is planning to interfere with my efforts to identify, challenge, defy, disrupt, and, finally, destroy the institutions that force us to do things or take stands against our will, I'm unmistakably terrified. His bromides have paid off: already, he has had some success in his efforts to place stumbling blocks in front of those of us who seek value and fulfilment in our personal and professional lives. Implying that repressive suborners of perjury have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us is no different from implying that two wrongs make a right. Both statements are ludicrous. Linus's confreres are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Linus Torvalds, who wants nothing less than to interfere with a person's work performance, bodily security, physical movement, or privacy rights.

There is a format he should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. One of Linus's former stooges, shortly after having escaped from Linus's iron veil of monolithic thought, stated, "Letting Linus wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public is a recipe for disaster." This comment is typical of those who have finally realized that if we can understand what has caused the current plague of vindictive boeotians, I believe that we can then get my message about Linus out to the world. If he got his way, he'd be able to ruin my entire day. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that.

Fortunately, the groundswell of quiet opposition to Linus is getting less quiet and more organized. Still, if we let Linus replace our timeless traditions with his disorderly ones, then greed, corruption, and racism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the media and educational institutions. Everybody loves a good game of hide-and-seek: find the person, find the hidden item, or, in Linus's case, find the hidden agenda.

When he hears anyone say that his supporters are too indolent to seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by his philosophies might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational, his answer is to delude and often rob those rendered vulnerable and susceptible to his snares because of poverty, illness, or ignorance. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. There is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of the worst kinds of villainous turncoats there are, but the hope that makes you eager to free people from the spell of Maoism that he has cast over them. The whole premise of Linus's accusations is false, and his arguments are specious at best. I am not going to go into too great a detail about the most power-hungry so-called experts you'll ever see, but be assured that someone has been giving Linus's brain a very thorough washing, and now Linus is trying to do the same to us.

He has shown he's not afraid to be featherbrained, to put it mildly. Since I have promised to be candid, I will tell you candidly that if he continues to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets. Linus says that I'm too pestilential to build a sane and healthy society free of his destructive influences. But then he turns around and says that everything is happy and fine and good. You know, you can't have it both ways, Linus.

I, not being one of the many nit-picky cretins of this world, find it sickening to watch him bamboozle people into believing that he acts in the public interest. Okay, that's a bit of an overstatement, but for all of you reading this who are not jaded mountebanks, you can understand where the motivation for that statement comes from. He will damage the debate about this issue, because we will have to spend lots of time correcting misunderstandings that are directly attributable to his half-measures. In this land which has befriended noisome provocateurs, Linus has conspired, plotted, undermined, prostituted, and corrupted, and -- hiding to this hour behind the braver screen of deranged, cold-blooded maggots -- dares to contrive and scheme the death of every principle that has protected him. In the end, we have to ask, "Why can't we all just get along?" This can be answered most easily by stating that his sinister stratagems break down ages-old institutions and customs. Linus then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially his intellectually stultified form of it -- is. Now that I think about it, throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to deal with Linus appropriately and those who wish to tell everyone else what to do. Naturally, Linus belongs to the latter category. Help me fight for what is right. Join your hands with mine in this, the greatest cause of our time.

why 3.0? (1, Funny)

tps12 (105590) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353606)

Seriously, that stuff's ancient history. Redhat is releasing Linux 8.0 tomorrow. It's only $50 or so, so there's no excuse to stick with such an old version.

Re:why 3.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353645)

AHHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHA.

You aren't serious right? Red Hat calling their distro linux 8 is like me buying a porsche 911, breaking the mirrors off and denting the doors, then calling it a porsche 933.

Nice troll (1, Funny)

PhysicsGenius (565228) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353680)

Just in case there are people who don't get it, tps12 is confusing several things. Here's the real breakdown:

  • X Windows, which is the graphical design environment of Linux, is at version 3.
  • Because of this, Linus Torvalds is thinking of calling the next version of the kernel[1] version 3.0 as well to reduce confusion.
  • What RedHat is releasing is Linux 2.4 with GPL version 8.0.

[1] The software that provides math emulation, graphical buffers, virtualized serialization and any other odds and ends that the chip microware doesn't provide by itself,

Re:Nice troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353836)

Just in case there are people who don't get it, PhysicsGenius is confusing several things. Here's the real breakdown:
  • The X Window System, which is a graphical I/O system on Linux, is at version 11, release 6 (X11R6). The XFree86 implementation of X11R6, is at version 4.
  • Of all the things Linus is basing his version number decisions on, X isn't anywhere near one of them.
  • The GPL, last I checked, was still at version 2, as it has been for the last 11 years.

This is a really bad idea (1)

jsse (254124) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353607)

Imagine we'd end up having Linux 3.1, Linux 3.95*, and Linux 3.98. I can't stand Linux end up walking the same path Microsoft did. Some day they'd say Linx N10** is a good idea!

* Just in case you didn't realize, find MSINFO.EXE in old Windows 95 machine, run it and you'll see Windows 95 is in fact coded as Windows 3.95 on MSDOS 6.22
** N10 = NT

Windows 4.0, 4.1, 4.9 (1)

yerricde (125198) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353797)

Just in case you didn't realize, find MSINFO.EXE in old Windows 95 machine, run it and you'll see Windows 95 is in fact coded as Windows 3.95 on MSDOS 6.22

That might be a beta version. When I run diagnostic, I get Windows 4.0 on MS-DOS 7.x (win95), Windows 4.1 on MS-DOS 7.x (win98), or Windows 4.9 on MS-DOS 8.x (winME).

Re:This is a really bad idea (2)

TheAncientHacker (222131) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353799)

Actually, the retail Win95 reported its Windows version as 4.00.950 and the DOS Version was 7.00.

You'd get the earlier numbers with some legacy compatibility switches turned on to allow brain dead apps that blew up on winver>3 or dosver>6 to still run.

Hmmm... (1)

Sp4c3 C4d3t (607082) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353610)

The 3.0 name could be great for marketing purposes, but all around it really means nothing, as it will be the same kernel in the end. All I know is that I'll be compiling it the day it's labelled stable :B

Isn't it obvious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353611)

It's just a number!

Importance of Versioning (5, Interesting)

peatbakke (52079) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353623)

As Linus said, it doesn't really matter what it's called, so long as people use it. Versions don't have any real technical meaning (other than the even/odd kernels which signify stable/development).

Since it doesn't have any technical meaning, it shouldn't be argued on technical merit. However, version numbers play a big roll in the business world. Business and marketing folk get the biggerbetterfaster vibe from increasing version numbers.

Several distributions just released new versions in the last couple of months, or are on the verge of releasing new versions. Redhat, Mandrake, Debian, etc. Good stuff. Let the hype play out, and don't trump it by releasing a Brand New Big Version Kernel that none of the distros contain.

Make this one 2.6. Technical people in the know, the ones who run the servers, the ones who really need the performance increases, will upgrade accordingly. Rumors in the press will be able to convince people that Linux is growing and kicking ass.

Make the 3.0 switch after distributions have caught their breath, and after some of the other nifty things that impact userland have been completed: the POSIX stuff, further refinement of the new VM system, FS improvements (resizing, reiser 4, etc).

Then everyone can whoop and holler about what a great new kernel it is, and how much more added value it gives to distribution version increments, etc. etc.

Linux is great technology. Fantastic technology. It's development shouldn't be dictated by fickle marketroids. But version numbers are the most publicly visible attribute of the kernel, and should be treated accordingly.

Suggestions... (0, Redundant)

christurkel (520220) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353627)

How about Kernel 2002? Kernel X? Oh I got it!!! Kernel XP...uh, nevermind. 3.0 is better! ----

Re:Suggestions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353653)

For fuck's sake, the joke is old already - get some new material1!

Only 3.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353630)

But every newbie will think that Linux 3.0 is BEHIND all of the other distro's like Slackware 9.0 (coming soon) and RedHat 8.0 ... why not call it Linux 10.0 and beat every distro to it?

Just don't call it Linux X. It looks crap, it's a bad pun on MacOS X and it'll probably shit someone involved with X-Windows.

Then again, why not do it for all of the above reasons?

Slow news day? (0, Offtopic)

Sneakums (2534) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353639)

You know, if there's nothing but pap like this in the submissions queue, it's perectly okay to JUST POST NOTHING AT ALL.

Linux i300 XL+ (1)

QuantumWeasel (606327) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353659)

First off, a ridiculously large (is it?) number might stimulate people to think about "what's in a name" anyway. And if that doesn't work, perhaps ambiguation of collating rules will. And if that still doesn't work, maybe the cute little XL+ postfix will. Carmakers and soapmakers do it all the time to great effect.

Software version numbers are ostensibly nothing but bookkeeping. Any departure from a simple incremental scheme belies a shift from bookkeeping to marketing. And one of the rules of marketing is "Think big and think loud." So marvel at how shiny it is!

* * * Linux i300 XL+ * * *

Once we have thoroughly obfuscated the marketplace, we can all get back to focusing on features. To wit, the name game is Linus' perogative. But why not leave that fluff to the people (Redhat, Mandrake, SuSE) who are actually getting rewarded for marketing? Bottom line: kernel development is about capability. Naming is about marketing. Whichever path you choose, do the best you can.

It should be 3.0: here's why (5, Funny)

smagoun (546733) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353666)

There's no 2.6 in the list of What Software Version Numbers Really Mean [stokely.com] , so obviously it can't be 2.6. Therefore it must be at least 3.0. In fact, I'm stil confused as to how a 2.4 release got out.

funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353728)

hehehe

This is the biggest problem with Linux (5, Funny)

Quixote (154172) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353667)

In the time that Linux has gone from 0.9 to 2.5, Windows has gone from 3.11 to 2000 ! In other words, Windows development is proceeding at 1331.26 times the development of Linux! No wonder Microsoft is light-years ahead of Linux.

I think we should speed up development and annoint a dedicated "version czar" who will make sure that the Linux kernels stay ahead of Windows. Hard as it may be, I'm willing to ``do my share'' and volunteer for this position. My first step would be to shift the decimal point 3 places to the right. This decimal has been hogging the #2 spot in the release number for too long; it is time it got relegated to the #5 spot, where it rightfully belongs.

:-) for the :-)-impaired

Re:This is the biggest problem with Linux (2)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353734)

Yes, lets call it for the year it's released.
The next stable release would then be known as:

Linux 2004

Cause it will not ready for release before :-)

Also 2003 it's not even so it can't be the name of an stable release. :-)

Re:This is the biggest problem with Linux (1)

sthiyaga (529538) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353778)

call it 42!

Re:This is the biggest problem with Linux (2, Informative)

nr (27070) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353772)

Uh, Windows started at version 1.0, I have run 1.0 on an old IBM XT machine. there are also Windows 3.10 which was relesed before 3.11

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353681)

What matters is the product, not what you call it!

Versions mean nothing, features do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353688)

(And to qoute famous cartoon caracters in this situation)

What shall we call it, boss?

Who cares, tommorow is another day.

And what shall we do tommorow, boss?

Like always, try to take over the world.

eLinux (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4353701)

How 'bout 2.7183 ...

exp(1)

It's just a number (1, Offtopic)

_aa_ (63092) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353708)

it's always bothered me in version numbers when 1.12 is newer than 1.2, for example. For some people that could be misleading. I've always prefered the 'build 132' and 'build 523' method, but in large, complex projects such as the kernel you'd end up with 'build 19283928909823709837216702314987897321023198472310 59'. Perhaps using hexadecimal could eliminate the large numbers, 'build 0xF63B1' for example. Of course the general public doesn't speak hexadecimal, and the version order would be misleading to them. There's always the microsoft method of naming the product 'product name' + the year after the year the product was released, i.e. Windows 98, 95, 2000. I think given all of these choices, the only reasonable solution is to use them all.

Presenting: Linux 2004 build 0x353E07-3489287 3.1.14

It should be really simple (1)

Trevin (570491) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353714)

If the changes are an enhancement of the existing code, such as adding new features or improvements, increment the minor version number (2.6). If the changes reflect a complete rewrite of the code (or at least a significant part of it), jump to the next major version (3.0).

Sounds like he means it (3, Interesting)

Odinson (4523) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353715)

While I defiantly see the point about binary compatibility, it doesn't have to be the only major upgrade reason. I think I'll go compile it right now to make sure we are ready for this...

The truth is changing major version numbers would give the Linux business a major shot in the arm. Every press establishment would have no choice but to run a story about Linux and it's capibilities at a time when MS is chasing it's customers off, and everybody would have to upgrade their Linux mascot.

Do you really think there would be version wars if the announcments didn't make the participants money?

Linux 3.0 (0, Offtopic)

genetik (115422) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353718)

so sleazy to use, no wonder it's number one!

2.6 (1)

lizzybarham (588992) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353721)

I opt for 2.6 because the ABI did not change. The 3.0 sounds like a marketing move which I believe will hurt things in the long run.

Make 2.6.3 usable, never install a dot-oh version (2, Interesting)

fasta (301231) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353788)

Calling the successor of 2.5 version 3.0 ignores the 2.4 (pre .14 or perhaps .16) debacle and the old adage to never deploy a .0 operating system.

While millions of Linux users were apparently happy with the early 2.4 kernels, those of us with heavy CPU large memory needs were appalled when we watched our computers lock up under heavy memory usage. Yes, we thought we had a usable system at 2.4.14, but then came .15, with file system corruption, so .16 was the FIRST usable version for systems with high memory demand. Wouldn't it be great if 2.6.1 was as robust as 2.2, or 2.4.17, at the beginning?

Since we all know better than to deploy a .0 version, 3.0 must be a non-starter.

Calling it 3.0 is bad (0, Flamebait)

nr (27070) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353792)

f**k 3.0, give us 2.6 and contuine the same path with 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 until we reach 3.0. Big jumps in version numbers sucks bigtime.

Linux IV (4, Funny)

rjamestaylor (117847) | more than 12 years ago | (#4353805)

Jump the revision to IV. The major improvements are in the IO blocking and VM subsystem. That's the excuse... but the real reason would be to benefit from the press explaining the numbering revision and what it means--that's the ploy Microsoft, Intel, and IBM have used to manipulate free press about their products ever since, well, the IBM AT and IBM PS/2. Heck, even Apple does it.

Linux IV, becuase Free software needs free press, too.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?