Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Kernel 3.0?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the cuz-2.x-is-just-stale-now dept.

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..."

4 of 363 comments (clear)

  1. Slow news day? by Sneakums · · Score: 0, Offtopic

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

  2. It's just a number by _aa_ · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    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

  3. Linux 3.0 by genetik · · Score: 0, Offtopic

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

  4. Not 3.0 by bigfatlamer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    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