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..."
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 rose by any other name would still have thorns.
- SMJ - (It's not just a name: it's a bad aftertaste.)
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!
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
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.
Linux IV, becuase Free software needs free press, too.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Wow, KDE 2 is out?! I'll have to pick that up.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
> 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, no, you don't understand. Current versions are still numbered
0.21.n.n because the first major release hasn't been reached yet.
The version number won't be incremented to 1.0 until Emacs has all
the fundamentally vital features it needs to be credibly called a
text editor. Besides better threading (planned for 0.22 or 0.23),
Emacs still needs thorough support for multiple human languages
and OS platforms, a more extensive help system, and complete text
manipulation functionality before a solid 1.0 release can be made.
Better (reentrant) scriptability and networking support would also
be very nice to have for the 1.0 release. Sure, the developers
and early adopters don't bother to say the "0." part, but we all
know it's there. As far as end users are concerned, Emacs really
doesn't even exist yet, in fully-functional released form. Those
of us who have started using it early only do so for testing, or
because there are no alternatives. (If anyone is aware of any
fully-functional text editing application, whether open or closed,
commercial or non-commercial, I would like to know about it, but I
have looked high and low and am under the impression that there is
none available for any platform, at any price. Emacs 0.21, despite
its obvious incompleteness, is the closest thing there is that I
have been able to find.)
See, people may think Mozilla.org invented the fully-functional
1.0 release, but Emacs has had that philosophy all along. In
spades. So, now you know
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Heck, Netscape even skips MAJOR version numbers (they skipped 5.0)
Microsoft skipped 91 major version numbers from 3.11 to 95...and it *still* wasn't much of an upgrade.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
If you really want marketing.
May we never see th