Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linus says 2.6 kernel will be out by June 2003

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the believe-it-when-you-see-it dept.

Xpilot writes "C|Net reports that Linus Torvalds predicts 2.6 will be out by June next year during a talk on his Geek Cruise. Linus called the next release '2.6', but knowing him that may be just a working title;)" Update: 10/26 17:29 GMT by T : An anonymous reader adds "Rob Landley has published the latest list of features being considered for inclusion" in the new kernel; ... "the long and impressive list is available in more or less human readable form on Linux and Main."

7 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. WARNING: incorrect quote by kryps · · Score: 5, Informative

    He never said that.

    Nowhere in the article did he even imply anything like the last part of this quote (it's an all-new instruction set that the Transmeta Crusoe processors can't emulate). If you wanted to make a point you should have put this statement outside of the quote.

    I can't understand why the parent was modded up.

    -- kryps

  2. Re:It's "GNU/Linux 2.6" by fok · · Score: 5, Informative

    No.. this is just the kernel... and it is called linux

    --
    \m/
  3. Robert Love predicts January 2004 by Xpilot · · Score: 4, Informative

    In this interview with Robert Love in July, he predicted 18 months before 2.6 gets released(that would make the release early in 2004).

    I'm more inclined to go with Robert Love's estimate considering 2.4's late release.

    Offtopic : Hey, my story submission got accepted! :) Now that's a first.

    --
    "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
    1. Re:Robert Love predicts January 2004 by sagei · · Score: 5, Informative

      In this interview with Robert Love in July, he predicted 18 months before 2.6 gets released(that would make the release early in 2004).

      I'm more inclined to go with Robert Love's estimate considering 2.4's late release.

      I think I may need to revise that (although I did go on to say a year from then, which would be summer of 2003)... the kernel is remarkably stable at this point and if we can stick to the freeze and get enough testers, I really believe we can have a code freeze in early 2003 and a release not too long thereafter. Five or six months from now seems very doable.

      And I really encourage testers. We need you. Part of the VM debacle in 2.4 was we just did not understand the corner-cases because there were not enough testers testing on enough different machines on enough different workloads. We need to know where catatrophic VM failures are, where areas of high latency exist, and in general where the bad behavior is. This kernel is remarkably better in all aspects than 2.4... it is very smooth. But it needs testers to ease us into a stable release.

      --

      Robert Love

  4. No more 9.9-pre-beta-5116.0002-r3-pre-patch-ac4-02 by dattaway · · Score: 4, Informative

    To prevent this dreaded war upon version numbers, a good formula would be something like:

    V=1-1/X

    As your revisions increment, you will be closer to the famed 1.0 release, but never quite there. The press can always ask, "ARE WE THERE YET?" and always be told, "IN A FEW MINUTES!"

  5. That feature list is just the late list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    That list is just the list of features that are not yet merged and thus need an imminent decision before the feature freeze next Thursday. It's also not especially long or impressive, since these are minor features and a much greater number of patches of that kind are already in. Of the stuff on that list, probably only IPSEC and one of the LVM replacements (needed since LVM1 has been removed) will impact most users, though the crash dumps would also be nice.

    The significant changes in 2.6 will be the new block layer and attendant performance/scalability improvements, the new NPTL thread support, ALSA, and the XFS and JFS merges. See Guillaume Boissiere's list for more.

  6. Compatibility is not the issue by mbrubeck · · Score: 5, Informative
    Linux goes to 3.x when it breaks compatability with 2.x.

    Nope. In this lkml thread, Linus says:

    We've never had that as any criteria for major numbers in the kernel. Binary compatibility has _never_ been broken as a release policy, only as a "that code is old, and we've given people 5 years to migrate to the new system calls, the old ones are TOAST".

    The only policy for major numbers has always been "major capability changes". 1.0 was "networking is stable and generally usable" (by the standards of that time), while 2.0 was "SMP and true multi-architecture support". My planned point for 3.0 was NuMA support, but while we actually have some of that, the hardware just isn't relevant enough to matter.