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.
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
- SMJ - (It's not just a name: it's a bad aftertaste.)
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.
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!
"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?
Linux IV, becuase Free software needs free press, too.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Nope .. He always makes the speach go something like thigs:
"Linux is the kernel, which was written by Linus (and others). The distributions are the Linux kernel + GNU Utitilites - so Linux distributions should be called GNU/Linux"
On that basis the Linux Kernel is just Linux.
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
> 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.
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!
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