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..."
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.
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.
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.
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
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?!
-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
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?
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.
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.
From the Jargon Dictionary:
guru n. [Unix] An expert. Implies not only wizard skill but also a history of being a knowledge resource for others. Less often, used (with a qualifier) for other experts on other systems, as in `VMS guru'
I'd certianly say that is an apt description.
From Dictionay.com:
guru Pronunciation Key (gr, g-r)
n. pl. gurus
1. Hinduism & Tibetan Buddhism. A personal spiritual teacher.
2.
1. A teacher and guide in spiritual and philosophical matters.
2. A trusted counselor and adviser; a mentor.
3.
1. A recognized leader in a field: the guru of high finance.
2. An acknowledged and influential advocate, as of a movement or idea: "In a culture that worships slimness, he was the Guru of Lean" (Erica Abeel).
Either way, I don't see how you understand guru to mean the sole source of teaching/information. This is especially true in the source context of the word, as Hinduism is very hiearchy orientated. There are high gurus and, more local priest like gurus, just the same. It's not like Catholosism, where the Pope is the head. Even thenm usully the lower in the hierchy have the "say so". The cardinals (Aka Seargents of Catholosism) run the show, just as the military is run by seargents.
That said, a guru (programmin wise) isn't necessairly a guru outside his area of intrest. A VM guru might not know shizola about filesystems (and their design), just as someone who is specilized in filesystems might not know anything about programming a driver for FreeX86.
In my opinion a consumer will never notice the kernel version number.
Yeah, but you wouldn't believe the amount of IT managers who would. 3.0 could seriously help divorce Linux from some of the FUD that's been spread about 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4.
DS
Argh! The first digit in the kernel version number was always meant to indicate the ABI version!
Where did you get that idea? It's simply not true, and never has been. The increase from 1.x to 2.x was to signal the addition of SMP capability. The kernel ABI's change quite regularly during a development series. Usually in such ways as to remain compatible, but compatible does not imply contstant and every so often things are broken (think about some of the problems with some well known binary-only modules for some examples).
Linux user since early January 1992.