Slashdot Mirror
Linux 2.6 Kernel Pool Results
jafo writes "Steve Ratcliffe, Master Software Project Estimator, has most correctly estimated the release of the Linux version 2.6 kernel. On January 6, 2001 (within 4 hours of when the 2.6 kernel pool was opened), he entered a guess which was accurate within 15 hours. Check the results for some interesting statistics and submit your guess for the 2.8 pool." See the original story if you like.
I might be quite off on this, but isn't changing the major number (like 1 to 2, or 2 to 3) supposed to signal breaking backwards compatability of some sort?
Or am I totally out in the blue here? It wouldnt surprise me if I was..
I believe that maps to a time_t of 2147483647+1 implying that time travel of some sort is required.
This is what I've always understood..
the primary number (v1, v2, etc) is a MAJOR rewrite of the code..
the secondary number (x.1, x.2, etc) is a substantial release, lots of changes and upgraded code...
and the tertiary number (x.x1, x.x2, etc) are primarly big fixes.
-Mikey
That may have been one of the worst graphs I've ever seen. Com'on guys...havn't we heard of intervals?
-Chris
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
The same thing happens in proprietary software. Perhaps there's a lower rate of attrition in proptietary software once it's past the proposal stage, but I think that has a lot to do with the argument "We've already spent $bigbucks on the BlackHole project, do you want that to go to waste?", while with open source, if a project doesn't actually meet a need, the project is most likely going to wither away.
Well, as soon as I saw the ad I immediately recognized the chick. As in, I'd seen the ad before, not that I knew who she was. But I never even realized that it was an ad for personals.
Just goes to show how much I pay attention to the ads...