Slashdot Mirror
Linux Kernel 3.0?
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..."
Any mirrors? Not responding.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
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.
-Cnik
What about 2.8???
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.
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.
on to 3.11! Oops!
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."
:)
... boring :) [while kernel releases are
... boring :) [while kernel releases are
_ __ ______________
... boring :) [while kernel releases are
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
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
> 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
> 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
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.
They should call it Linux 2003 to beat Microsoft.
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
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 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.
Me use 3.0.0 Yea right! Tell us when 3.0.10 comes out, until then, noone cares.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Linux 3 sounds... odd.
Debian 3.1
With KDE 3.1
And Kernel 3.0
A rose by any other name would still have thorns.
Kernel 3.0 already has info available here.
If you don't know what Zoo Blacklisting is, click here.
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
stuff
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.
I agree that Linux is pretty 1337, but what happened to versions 4, B, before they go to version 3?
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.
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
And call it 0.3
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.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
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
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
Happy New Year, it's 1984!
It's just a number!
...it's :)
gnu/Linux 95
gnu/Linux 98
gnu/LiNTux
gnu/Linux 2000
gnu/LinuXP
and gnu/Li.NET
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.
How about Kernel 2002? Kernel X? Oh I got it!!! Kernel XP...uh, nevermind. 3.0 is better! ----
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
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?
You know, if there's nothing but pap like this in the submissions queue, it's perectly okay to JUST POST NOTHING AT ALL.
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.
There's no 2.6 in the list of What Software Version Numbers Really Mean, 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.
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.
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.
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
[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,
What matters is the product, not what you call it!
(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.
exp(1)
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
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).
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?
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
so sleazy to use, no wonder it's number one!
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.
hehehe
The point is that emacs is still emacs.
It's version 1.21 now, but we just call it '21'.
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?
"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.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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.
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.
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).
Will I retire or break 10K?
Linux IV, becuase Free software needs free press, too.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Let's just use names like Mandrake Linux 8.0,
kernel bend-over and reserve the numbering
in parenthesis.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103326331300001&r= 1&w=2
I have to say, Winamp (3.0) and commercial games have convinced me that *.0 releases of almost everything should really be *.0 beta. Zeros scare me, 2.6 sounds comfortingly mature.
I'm the stranger...posting to
That is the stupidest argument ever. It is just a number. The number given to it doesn't change the underlying reality.
I guess I should have read the article before commenting, but thank you for taking the time on a beautiful Sunday morning to respond.
What RedHat is releasing is Linux 2.4 with GPL version 8.0.
Does this mean I will finally be able to run Quake without crashing my mp3?
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Transcipts were released today including those of Gates and Ballmer arguing over what to call the latest version of Windows. Gates suggests WindowsXP where Ballmer is whining like a monkey screaming for WindowsXS. Gates eventually won the argument by giving Ballmer a food pellet.
:))
Really exciting news ladies and gentlemen. (but it's okay... it is Sunday
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
<Major level>.<Minor level>.<Modification level>
Something I found in a very old configuration- and release management book in the back of my shelf.
Ok, I haven't followed the kernel development, as I couldn't care less. All I'm interested in is that it (the kernel) provides the services I need via documented interfaces and has a unique version name / number, which I can refer to when documenting and talking to people.
There is also a bit of logic in following a numbering scheme. Even a 5 year old knows that two comes after one but before three. If the current kernel is 2.4 (which I'm not sure it is), then it'd follow some logic and common sense in giving the next version the number 2.5.
As people have pointed out, the kernel name has a market impact of close to nil and as such, I can't really see a justification for confusing people by skipping numbers.
Anyway, that's my take on this. Opinions are sure to differ.
In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda ~ Bill Durodié
Argh! The first digit in the kernel version number was always meant to indicate the ABI version! They should NOT change it from 2. to 3. unless they intend to make major (backwards-incompatible) changes to the kernel ABI. If they do this then we will lose the second-to-last piece of information in kernel version numbers. (the last piece being the even/odd stable/development thing)
I guess Linus is falling into the same trap as most other free software developers. Already in most software packages, version numbers provide nothing more than an ordered sequence of releases. There is no way to tell just by looking at a version number what ABI/API version is exported, whether it is a stable or development release, etc. Pathetic.
Fuck that. If we want it to be consumer friendly, let's call it Bob. Wait...didn't somebody try that already?
E
There's one thing computing teaches you, and that's that there's no point to remembering everything.
--Doug Copland
I thought everyone knew that 2.5 was followed by 6 for unix systems (Solaris!) [Although it looks like 9 might be followed by 3...] This will be fine so long as we adopt the cunning plan of refferring to it internally as 5.6 no matter what the actual version number.
Now if we really wanted confusion perhaps we could persuade all the distros to use different numbering schemes.</SARCASM>
"Linux is a serious competitor"
- Steve Ballmer, Chief Executive Microsoft Corp.
What Software Version Numbers Really Mean (Author Unknown)
...
...
Once you start playing with software you quickly become aware that each software package has a revision code attached to it. It is obvious that this revision code gives the sequence of changes to the product, but in reality there's substantially more information available through the rev-code than that. This article provides a guide for interpreting the meaning of the revision codes and what they actually signify.
1.0: Also known as "one point uh-oh", or "barely out of beta". We had to release because the lab guys had reached a point of exhaustion and the marketing guys were in a cold sweat of terror. We're praying that you'll find it more functional than, say, a computer virus and that its operation has some resemblance to that specified in the marketing copy.
1.1: We fixed all the killer bugs
1.2: Uh, we introduced a few new bugs fixing the killer bugs and so we had to fix them, too.
2.0: We did the product we really wanted to do to begin with. Mind you, it's really not what the customer needs yet, but we're working on it.
2.1: Well, not surprisingly, we broke some things in making major changes so we had to fix them. But we did a really good job of testing this time, so we don't think we introduced any new bugs while we were fixing these bugs.
2.2: Uh, sorry, one slipped through. One lousy typo error and you won't believe how much trouble it caused!
2.3: Some jerk found a deep-seated bug that's been there since 1.0 and wouldn't stop nagging until we fixed it!!
3.0: Hey, we finally think we've got it right! Most of the customers are really happy with this.
3.1: Of course, we did break a few little things.
4.0: More features. It's doubled in size now, by the way, and you'll need to get more memory and a faster processor
4.1: Just one or two bugs this time... Honest!
5.0: We really need to go on to a new product, but we have an installed base out there to protect. We're cutting the staffing after this.
6.0: We had to fix a few things we broke in 5.0. Not very many, but it's been so long since we looked at this thing we might as well call it a major upgrade. Oh, yeah, we added a few flashy cosmetic features so we could justify the major upgrade number.
6.1: Since I'm leaving the company and I'm the last guy left in the lab who works on the product, I wanted to make sure that all the changes I've made are incorporated before I go. I added some cute demos, too, since I was getting pretty bored back here in my dark little corner (I kept complaining about the lighting but they wouldn't do anything). They're talking about obsolescence planning but they'll try to keep selling it for as long as there's a buck or two to be made. I'm leaving the bits in as good a shape as I can in case somebody has to tweak them, but it'll be sheer luck if no one loses them.
______________
You will be able to play DVDs on your mp3 as much as you want without crashing UT Quake. However, I suggest you avoid GPL 8.1, due out next month, because it has a clause that requires planned obsolescence.
Get a life, you pedantic piece of bullshit. Anal retention doing fine?
The change from 1.x to 2.0 was made at the time that the a.out format was dropped in favor of elf. But wasn't this just a library change? Anyway after 2.8 they could go to 2.10, no reason the second number can't be two digits. Still the changes to vm, and /dev alone might be enough to jump it to 3.0, especially if the changes for SMT with kernel pre-emption are added.
There's something strange about making a bumping a major version number as an afterthought, don't you think?
.
Don't get me wrong... I have all the confidence in the world in Linus, and he knows way more about what he's doing than I do. I'm just surprised that a project that organized wouldn't have a "3.0 List" by now of all the new stuff they plan to do in 3.0 one of these days... and when they start putting all those pieces together in a source tree, they would call that the "3.0 code" from the beginning.
At least that's the way I would imagine it. But don't miscontrue anything I've said as a suggestion that I have any idea what I'm talking about
RP
Remember that Linux uses even minor versions to mean stable and odd minor versioning to be development, so here's the converted versioning. Notes that there *is* a 2.6 version. Surprisingly, a few deep seated bugs did emerge in 2.5 because those bugs were hiding behind other bugs that were just fixed.
...
...
1.0: Also known as "one point uh-oh", or "barely out of beta". We had to release because the lab guys had reached a point of exhaustion and the marketing guys were in a cold sweat of terror. We're praying that you'll find it more functional than, say, a computer virus and that its operation has some resemblance to that specified in the marketing copy.
1.2: We fixed all the killer bugs
1.4: Uh, we introduced a few new bugs fixing the killer bugs and so we had to fix them, too.
2.0: We did the product we really wanted to do to begin with. Mind you, it's really not what the customer needs yet, but we're working on it.
2.2: Well, not surprisingly, we broke some things in making major changes so we had to fix them. But we did a really good job of testing this time, so we don't think we introduced any new bugs while we were fixing these bugs.
2.4: Uh, sorry, one slipped through. One lousy typo error and you won't believe how much trouble it caused!
2.6: Some jerk found a deep-seated bug that's been there since 1.0 and wouldn't stop nagging until we fixed it!!
3.0: Hey, we finally think we've got it right! Most of the customers are really happy with this.
3.2: Of course, we did break a few little things.
4.0: More features. It's doubled in size now, by the way, and you'll need to get more memory and a faster processor
4.2: Just one or two bugs this time... Honest!
5.0: We really need to go on to a new product, but we have an installed base out there to protect. We're cutting the staffing after this.
6.0: We had to fix a few things we broke in 5.0. Not very many, but it's been so long since we looked at this thing we might as well call it a major upgrade. Oh, yeah, we added a few flashy cosmetic features so we could justify the major upgrade number.
6.2: Since I'm leaving the company and I'm the last guy left in the lab who works on the product, I wanted to make sure that all the changes I've made are incorporated before I go. I added some cute demos, too, since I was getting pretty bored back here in my dark little corner (I kept complaining about the lighting but they wouldn't do anything). They're talking about obsolescence planning but they'll try to keep selling it for as long as there's a buck or two to be made. I'm leaving the bits in as good a shape as I can in case somebody has to tweak them, but it'll be sheer luck if no one loses them.
The List pretty much lines up with Windows' history. You need to change a few names, however:
...
Version 4.0 == Windows 2000
> More features. It's doubled in size now, by the
> way, and you'll need to get more memory and a
> faster processor
Version 5.0 == Windows XP
> We really need to go on to a new product, but
> we have an installed base out there to protect.
> We're cutting the staffing after this.
Version 6.0 == Windows Palladium
> We had to fix a few things we broke in 5.0. Not
> very many, but it's been so long since we looked
> at this thing we might as well call it a major
> upgrade. Oh, yeah, we added a few flashy
> cosmetic features so we could justify the major
> upgrade number.
So make it 3.2.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
So can we compile in /usr/src or do we have to do it in /boot
If the VM improvements are really so cool. just stick them into 2.6, get it out the door, and save your grand schemes for the next release. I know it must be tempting to stick in the next great idea that seems just around the corner, but that just leads to endless delays and demoralizes the hackers that finished their work "on time" as they're waiting out to feature freeze while everyone else is still cleaning their code for release.
Ideal would be, I think, to call a 2.6 feature freeze very soon, and very shortly thereafter, open a 2.7 (2.9?) unstable branch where "anything goes."
2.4, 2.6, 2.5, 3.0 blah blah ad nauseum
get a damn clue. use -RELEASE or -CURRENT
LOL
Irrelevant. Linux is not a USA product.
Neither is a "PlayStation game console", a "Casio watch", an "ASUS motherboard", a "Panasonic television set", or a "BubbleJet printer". If it's traded in the USA, it has to follow USA trademark law.
But are you so sure that the Linux kernel isn't a USA product? Linus Torvalds, the maintainer of the Linux kernel, works for Transmeta, and "Transmeta is a publicly traded company located in Santa Clara, California".
Will I retire or break 10K?
It must be 2.6, versions ending in a zero are always less stable than those having higher minor version numbers and thus less trustworthy... :)
I always thought after 2.8 the next stable release was 2.10 with the development branch being 2.9.. why do they act like that is confussing? Nothing new with that.. lots of projects do version numbering just that way. You only bump the major version number for changes that are extreme or break compatibility or change the goal of the project or something large like that. The changes in the 2.5 branch would seem enough to jump to a 3.0 version but I'm confussed why they talked as if after 2.8 you HAD to jump to 3.0 as the next version.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Can someone enlighten me as to what this means? Does it for instance mean that drivers compiled for 2.6.1 will be binary compatible with other 2.6.x-kernels unlike in the 2.4-tree?
Who really cares what you number the next unstable backwards revision of linux??? It's still not as good as FreeBSD which already has had a stable vm and fs for ages.
I believe the Linux kernel should not be called 3.0 until it is 64-bit through and through.
The difference between 1.x and 2.x was a major architectural change: multiprocessor capability and portability to different platforms. The difference of 3.x should be equally as large: widening of all interfaces and data structures that are currently reaching their limits.
This includes 64-bit memory access, 64-bit file size access, 64-bit block counts on filesystems, and so on. Important external interfaces such as networking and filesystems must also be widened. A fully complete and robust IPv6 stack is a must: something that isn't quite there yet, but is getting close.
Essentially all fields in stat() require widening! Major and minor device numbers desperately need more room. Inode numbers and file size 64-bit, of course. Timestamps need to fix the Y2038 problem: 64-bit, possibly with added precision as well (to guarantee each file can be unambiguously sorted by time even on fast systems with such applications as parallel make). Security needs to be more fine grained (full ACL support). 32-bit UID and GID numbers. And finally, the filename itself needs to have full Unicode support without loss of field width (255 Unicode characters should be accepted). The output of the ls(1) command is a call to action: essentially every field there is in need of widening!
The main difference should be in the defaults: currently, standard stat() file limits and IPv4 are the defaults, and programs must go out of their way to request larger sizes (O_LARGEFILE) and IPv6. The programming model should be changed to provide programs with the widened resources as standard. This will take a long time, and is a gradual evolution, so there is a definite need for 2.6 and possibly 2.8 as transitional steps. The widening of these critical system resources is probably the main thing keeping Linux from large commercial UNIX installations!
Dr. Demento On The 'Net!
Will Kernal 3.0 include support for USB 2.0, Serial ATA, and Hard drives above 137GB?
www.enthea.org
Linux 3.1
Linux 3.14
Linux 3.141
Linux 3.1415
Linux 3.14159
etc.
...indicates that most or all of the product, and certainly the core, was rewritten from scratch. I wonder if they can really say they did that.
All of the comments complaining about the version going to 3.0 and not 2.6 are really, really stupid. Who cares? It is all arbitrary anyway. Stop pretending that there are some rules set in stone for this kind of thing. The assigning of version numbers are *completely* arbitrary in every imaginable way.
.1 = 3.0". Let us assume that there is a 2.9 development kernel eventually. What would stop Linus from calling the next stable version 2.10 instead of 3.0? What if it just keeps going to 2.485? Then you would probably complain that the major number is now useless because it never goes up.
Even the decision to stop accepting changes and release a new version number instead of waiting for a few more patches is completely arbitrary and depends on the project, the person/people developing the project, the needs of the project, the schedule of the project, the moods and quirks of the developers, etc. There are no universal rules for this sort of thing. By complaining about a version number being "wrong" somehow you are just showing your ignorance to how the development for the project works. Many times marketing plays a key role, but I really doubt that in this case. The number of improvements in the Linux kernel 2.5 series has been incredible. Performance will be amazing. Perhaps a bigger number is in order to signify the accomplishments.
It isn't like it is your decision anyway. Just be glad that the numbers aren't randomly picked, which could lead to a lower number being a later version. Just remember that bigger number=newer version and you will be all set.
Oh, and about those idiots that want to wait until 2.9 to get a 3.0 kernel. Really, that is just stupid. We aren't working with a system that works like that. An increment on 2.9 does not give us the equation "2.9 +
Which brings me back to the main point. It is arbitrary. If Linus wants to call it 3.0 and you complain, you are just being stupid and ignorant.
Things just don't work like this. It's difficult to say before a release whether it will be extremely robust. The only way to test stability is to get a whole lot of people to pound on the kernel and find stability problems. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen until Linus declares that the kernel is stable. But he's really just saying "As far as I can tell, the kernel is stable."
Anyway, not everyone had results as good as you with the 2.2 kernels. In fact, you may recall that 2.2.0 wasn't stable at all; 2.2.1 was release shortly thereafter to fix a major bug. When I switched from 2.0 to 2.2, I had plenty of stability problems, mostly due to buggy drivers. Things gradually improved through the 2.2 releases, until I finally stopped having problems around 2.2.14. From looking at LKML archives, I suspect this is the norm, rather than the exception.
In fact, I would say that linux kernel development has the following general pattern:
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
--Henry David Thoreau
the guy wasn't serious, get a sense of humor.
...or two?
GNU/Linux
Maybe with 3.0 they could dump the OSS emulation from ALSA that is now included with the kernel.
With 2.6 everybody wants old 2.x stuff to be compitible and I hate it that there are two different audio interfaces atm.
The numbers game is really marketing, and Kernels are not marketed, distros are. "Linux 3.0" being new and better than "Redhat 7.2" is just too confusing.
Somebody said do it the Sun way. The distributors already do. The distros are to Linux what Solaris is to SunOS. Solaris 9 is just the latest "distro" of SunOS 5.x (uname says Solaris 9 is SunOS 5.9).
So I would say keep using 2.x as long as it is binary compatible, and a new major number would be for a major change. A new VM system is not.
Looking again at Solaris, they went from Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 7 and not 2.7 to communicate the shift to a full 64-bit address space and release of two distict kernels (32-bit and 64-bit). However, the underlying OS remained SunOS 5.7 for compatability reasons. The main reason for not calling the SunOS 5.7 distro "Solaris 2.7" was marketing, as HP-UX was on version 11 and AIX was on version 4.
Sun has made changes such as a extended memory support and 64-bit filesystem (Solaris 2.6), 64-bit memory addressing (Solaris 7), new VM and significant filesystem changes (Solaris 8), new threading model (Solaris 9), all while maintaining SunOS 5.x binary compatability.
So let the Distro's use the sexy numbers. Keep the kernel number indicative of stability and compatability.
but wasn't one of the fundamental differences between linux 1.x & 2 that v.1 only ran on x86 architechure and v.2 had been made portable? Specifically, to the Digital/Compaq/HP Alpha processor? (Thank you, Jon "Maddog" Hall!)
Is this going to be as fundamental a shift?
Carthago delenda est!
Mmm... kernel pie
What should the name of the upcoming stable kernel release be ?
* 2.6
* 2.8
* 3.0
* I don't care
* The wha ?
* CowboyNeal
It's actually base 36, becase it has 36 digits (0-9, A-Z). So it's 33*36+16, which is 1204.
But you're assuming XP is in base 36. It could be in the special encoding system called "billcode". The rules: Anything starting with "lin" and ending with "ux" is automatically negative...
Where's the tag? Such HTML is unacceptable on Slashdot! :-)
Office office suite
"Microsoft Office(tm) application suite" sounds better.
Media Player media player (or is that Windows Media media player these days?)
Microsoft products are often named including a generic term, and "Microsoft" or "Windows" is the trademark. Thus, the WMA player is called "Windows(tm) Media Player (generic)", and the database management system is "Microsoft(tm) SQL Server (generic)". And the OS itself is the "Windows operating system" or "Windows environment", which contains a ".NET framework".
OpenOffice office suite
You need only one generic term: "StarOffice(TM) software"; "OpenOffice.org project".
America On Line online service, AOL Instant Messenger instant messenger
"America Online service"; "AOL Instant Messenger service and software"
Unix operating system
Close enough to the official line.
BSD unix software distribution (for extra fun, spell out what BSD stands for), Solaris unix, Gnu's Not Unix unix
Better: "BSD operating system family", "Solaris operating environment", "GNU system", "GNU/Linux operating system", etc.
Laser Jet laser printer, DeskJet inkjet printer
You're more likely to find those in HP literature as "LaserJet printer" or "DeskJet printer".
That way lies madness.
That way lies trademark law. You need only one generic term, not the monstrosities that you exaggerated.
Though an argument can probably be made that the Linux trademark has not been protected by its holder in that regard, since he actually encourages people to use the term to refer to more than just the kernel, but that is another kettle of fish.
The LINUX® mark covers "computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation".
"tissue" has a meaning very different from anything Kleenex makes
OK, "Kleenex facial tissue".
I've seen a Barbie doll commercial where the word "doll" was awkwardly dubbed in, presumably after Mattel legal complained.
Even without trademark law, what's better: to be pedantically correct, or to be understood?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Thanks for the KernelTrap mirror.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
... Linux .NET .NET.
And release it before Windows
I'm waiting for version 42. That's the answer.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
There have been some excellent and very valid points made in the comments here - bumping it gives a media boost because everyone will devote a few screen inches to it. That therefore needs to be balanced with a collection of new features that people can be sold on. "It runs millions more threads than you will ever see, it does it in the blink of a very small and fast blinking bat" isn't quite the same as "we put in all new disk management and resizing tools, all new enterprise-class filing systems, top notch new security controls..", etc, etc.
Those are all perfectly true and someone needs to work that out, not to mention work out if it really matters.
What I think really does matter is what the 3.0 release comes from, not when. I really wouldn't like to see 2.5 or 2.9 go straight into 3.0. Sure it may be a lovely new kernel, but if it's going to take until 3.0.14 to get stable enough, people are going to be unhappy.
I guess my suggestion therefore would be to turn 2.5 into 2.6, get it stable and into all the major distros, then run two development trees, an experimental 3.1 for way out new core stuff, but also a 2.9 that simply adds non-core things to 2.6 (e.g. Reiser4, EVMS, MACs, etc.) so that it has a stable base to sit on while integration work is done. The wonderous BitKeeper ought to make back/forward porting work done on each tree relatively simple, plus we get to announce a big 3.0 release that not only has tons of sweet new features, but also has many months of proven stability because it's core is really 2.6. Nes pas?
Chris "Ng" Jones
cmsj@tenshu.net
www.tenshu.net
In general, I think Linux version numbers tend to be as screwed up as Windows version numbers. The kernel itself, and stuff like GNOME and KDE are fine, but a lot of the secondary software is not. There are totally stable products that have 1.0 is something the author has some level of faith in.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Hey let's just follow Sun's lead and jump right to Linux 6 instead of 2.6.
groan
This is probably the most inane and worthless thing I've ever seen on the internet. Ever.
Note to linux people: No one gives a fuck. Not one.
So, maybe we should just go from 2.5 to 3.1 directly? :-)
I remember Commodore caught a bit of flak for their versioning system (it was the same as the Linux kernel's and people couldn't handle double digits in the minors without feeling woozy and have a bit of a lay down) from time to time, but Microsoft's just plain silly. Has anyone seen Exchange 1.0? 2.0? 3.0, even? Or the "Exchange client" in Windows 95 Mk II that didn't have support for the Exchange server?
It's a good thing I'm currently on Windows NT 5.1, an OS named Windows Vomit ( :-XP ) would be too much to bear for my poor Athlon...
Money for nothing, pix for free
The zeroes - they're spreading, they're everywhere!
seriously, though, I'm happy so long as the 2nd digit isn't 0.
I'm the stranger...posting to
1. What happens when Linus decides to retire, quit, or (god forbid) passes on? Are we screwed, or is there someone out there that is willing to step up?
2. If #1 happens, will people be accepting of the new kernel god, or will people start to leave because the "Linus isn't doing it anymore" mentality will start to invade the minds of the faithful?
3. Who of the linux users out there care about version numbers, other than keeping tack of new features/updates? Hell, the new release could be 2.6, 3.0, or Linux 10k for all i care. I like linux and the GNU system, so i'll stay with it regardless of revision number.
4. As for the marketdroids, wouldn't they (and the public for that matter) be more interested in an easier to use UI, simpler install system, and better game compatability than in the actual kernel revision #?
anywho...just my 2 pence...
-frozen
I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
2.6
3.0
42
CBN/Linux
Why not avoid the whole 2.4 not being stable for a while issue? Release as 2.6, fix mountains of bugs, when it is properly stable, release 3.0==2.6.14 or whatever.
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
leave it to some linux geeks to waste their time arguing about version numbers.
The VM???? What does that mean, the Virtual Machine, in a OS kernel, nah.
If people mean the Virtual Memory Manager then why not remove the ambiguity, let alone the poor grammer. Whats wrong with VMM?
Before all this gets too far out of hand, let's try to remember one important thing:
It belongs to Linus, and it's up to him.
'nuff said.
C|N>K
yes! I completely agree. Right on!
64bit wide interfaces and IPv6.
Is 2600 a build number, or what?
Yes.
It makes sence to call the new kernel 2.6.0 instead of 3.0.0, the reason is that is does not break anything in 2.x versions, unlike from 1.2.x to 2.0.0 a few things were broken, and with a distro you could not simply update the kernel without updating other things like some libs, with the new kernel it is not the case nothing is being broken, so it is better to leave the version 3 for a major update that breaks things from 2, this will eventualy happen.
It is not good to increase versions numbers artificially, this is not microsoft, which what was going to be called windows 4 was actually called windows 95 jumped 91 versions.
I vote for 2.6
Ever wonder if Linus cackles to himself a little bit each night before he goes to sleep?
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
The kernel itself has supported 64 bit file ops since 2.4. glibc off_t, stat, fseek etc are 64bit if you choose them to be via standard compiler flags.
IOW: STFU.
Author of poem is found on: http://www.poppyfields.net/filks/00320.html
32-bit UID and GID numbers
:-D
HAH! That's not 64bit through-and-through!
Please someone wake me up when it is all over.
If you really want marketing.
May we never see th
Dammit, we have a kickass I/O subsystem, cool. But without disk-access priorities attached to processes, it's kind of hard to fully take advantage of it.
May we never see th
then they better make it stable and freeze just about every API for the whole 3.x series. That is, unless they feel content to let Linux be a toy OS for computer geeks. They can do it, and it is a good thing. I hope they do, but I don't have high hopes.
LinCE
sorry-- get it right .....
---GNU/Mouahahahaha!
GNU/Linux GNU/XP!
GNU/*nix users know the GNU/first letter of GNU/"experience"
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
Face it, there is inteligent life out of your country...
Linux has a kernel? of what?
Bhuddha-lite
Whatever.
3.1= Universal Alpha .NET= Secure, stable release (as stated by Microsoft.com)
4.0= First Beta Release
5.0= RC1
XP= Too many bugs from 3.1 to be stable
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
I'll agree to naming it 3.0 when it washes my laundry, irons it, and hands me a cup of Java on my way out the door.
People...please, lets stick by our versioning conventions. They serve a purpose beyond marketing hype. I don't wish Linux to be caught up in an escalation war when it doesn't deserve the 3.0 moniker. I mean, when does it stop? We're not marketing toadies, are we?
Before taking about the name of the next kernel, you/we should work on the stability of 2.4.
In my opinion 2.4.19 is still critical to use for HA computing. There are too much bugs ("like spinlock etc.) to use it in a not clustered production environment.