Revamped Linux Kernel Numbering Concluded

kernel_dan writes "Following on the heels of a prior discussion about a kernel numbering scheme, KernelTrap has the conclusion. From summary: "Linus Torvalds decided against trying to add meaning to the odd/even least significant number. Instead, the new plan is to go from the current 2.6.x numbering to a finer-grained 2.6.x.y. Linus will continue to maintain only the 2.6.x releases, and the -rc releases in between. Others will add trivial patches to create the 2.6.x.y releases. Linus cautions that the task of maintaining a 2.6.x.y tree is not going to be enjoyable.'" Torvalds suggested specific guidelines to alleviate burn-out of the .y maintainer and Greg KH volunteered to begin maintainership."

Comments

Just one question:

[Anonymous Coward]

The *.x.y kernels are unstable.
The *.x only kernels are stable.

Won't there be a 28 day cycle for
stability on the *.x only kernel?

Re:Just one question:

[iamplupp]

actually; with only one x-chomosome (45,X) the person is suffering from Turner syndrome and probably wont have any menstruation at all unless treated with hormones

Burnout

[philovivero]

Torvalds suggested specific guidelines to alleviate burn-out of the .y maintainer

Did he say anything about the .NET maintainer? That'd take a serious toll on your sanity.

How *DO* you write a Linux device driver in C#?

Re:Burnout

[Mark_MF-WN]

Hey, don't laugh. If Java can be used for both realtime systems and driver development, anything's possible.

Besides, Mono can probably compile to machine code, just like anything else.

Gregkh already made one point release

[Xpilot]

You can find it in his own subdirectory on kernel.org at:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/greg kh/v2.6.11/

It includes tiny fixes such as a Dell laptop keyboard fix and a raid6 compilation fix for ppc.

Numbering... eek.

[Faust7]

Others will add trivial patches to create the 2.6.x.y releases. Linus cautions that the task of maintaining a 2.6.x.y tree is not going to be enjoyable.

2.6.x...
2.6.x.y...
2.6.x.y.z...

Kind of a Zeno's Paradox, isn't it?

Re:Numbering... eek.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not seeing it - once they reach 2.6.x.y.z.z.y the solution to all the kernel's problems will appear.

Yes.

[ggvaidya]

And all bets are off if you try compiling more than one *.x.y kernel on the same computer ...

Re:Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on the computer's location.
This may soon be legal in Canada.

Here's an idea...

[rekoil]

Why not do 3.x, 4.x, ... like every other software developer in the world (well, except Microsoft and Apple...)?

Honestly, I don't understand the insistence on keeping everything at 2.x, 2.x.y, etc. If someone can explain the rationale to me, I'd be quite interested.

Re:Here's an idea...

[MarcQuadra]

Because bumps to the major version number indicate HUGE-scale rewrites, while the minor (.6 in this case) define feature-complete stable branches, and the trailing number at the end is for bugfixes and minor enhancements.

This is the way software SHOULD be versioned. It's the way Apple is versioning now, and it's the way Microsoft versions it's core systems (Windows XP SP2 = NT 5.1.2600).

Personally, I'd like for the odd-minor devel releases to go away and find some better way of versioning those, but everything else to-date has been sensible and sane, and I've been compiling my own kernels since the 2.1 series.

Re:Here's an idea...

[NitsujTPU]

Windows XP SP2 = NT 5.1.2600

Funny. Someone HAS to have planned that one.

Re:Here's an idea...

[MidnightBrewer]

I suspect the recent trend over the years to stay attached to point-point-point releases, especially for those projects that take forever and a day to hit 1.0, isn't so much an honesty thing as a sub-conscious desire to avoid responsibility for mistakes. I'm not referring to legal liability so much as professional pride. "Of course it has bugs, it's still not 1.0!" I'm sorry, but that's not realistic. People don't get paid to be perfectionists; that's a conceit to be enjoyed on your own time.

You do your best, you release it as 1.0, and then you start all over again to fix bugs and work towards the next full release. Making the numbers smaller doesn't change the quality of your software, it just helps a programmer live with the perceived embarrassment of not writing the perfect piece of code. In the final analysis, the numbers are all arbitrary; any sense of pride in your work or shame about your mistakes is a personal issue. Take Apple as an example. You could strip the 10 off of 10.3.8 and say that they are on version 3.8 of OS X. That means that version 4.0 is just around the corner, and that makes their turn-around cycle sound that much more impressive. To those who protest that a full point release demands unbelievable innovation and "drastic code re-writes," I have to ask, "Where is that written?" In the final analysis, versioning is all in your head. :)

Re:Here's an idea...

[Keeper]

The build numbers are based off of the number of months/days that have elapsed from build 0.

Re:Here's an idea...

[wiggles]

Apparently, you don't get it. See this.

Re:Here's an idea...

[advocate_one]

you do realise that 2.6 is a massive rewrite of 2.4. Whole subsystems are completely different along with wholly new APIs to talk to devices etc. Perhaps we should have gone to 3.0 instead of 2.6, then there would be less hassle by having dev work going on in 3.1, backporting interesting stuff when it's working properly to 3.0...

Re:Here's an idea...

[Sique]

That's basicly what SUN was doing with their release numbers.
Solaris 10 is in fact Solaris 2.10, and the kernel of Solaris 2.10 is the SunOS 5.10.

Solaris was released as "2", because it was the first software distribution from SUN Microsystems that was SVR4 compliant, thus making a difference to the previous SunOS releases, which were based on BSD. Solaris 2 got a rewrite of the old SunOS kernel, which was at 4.3.1 before Solaris. So the kernel was SunOS 5.0. With every new Solaris Software Release there were also minor changes to the kernel, so Solaris 2.1 had a 5.1 kernel, etc.pp. With Solaris 7 Sun got rid of the "2" (which meant Second Approach to a UNIX operating system ;) ), and while in fact the core Solaris Distribution was a release 2.7 (using SunOS Kernel 5.7), it was marketed as Solaris 7 (because in fact it was the 8th release of the Solaris 2 operating system, starting counting with 0).

Same with the Linux Kernel versions. Think of Linux Kernel 2 as the kernel series with loadable modules and SMP capabilities (different than the Kernel 1 releases, which where monolithic blocks until the Kernel 1.3 developer kernels started with loadable modules). As long as this characteristics stay stable, there is no point to go for a Linux 3 kernel. The current Linux 2 kernel is at his 4th stable feature set, and because of the numbering for feature stable releases with even numbers, it gets the fourth even number: 6 (the first three being 0, 2 and 4). The different versions of the fourth feature stable Linux Kernel 2 releases should look all the same from a userland perspective (they don't completely, but that's a rather minor side effect), so they are all called Linux 2.6. To make a difference between the single versions of the Linux 2.6 kernels you get a version numbering: the first one being 2.6.0, the current one 2.6.11.

The fourth number comes into being when it goes about differently patched versions of the stable current kernel branch. None of those four-numbered kernels is thought for a general public, they are rather experimental versions until a release candidate emerges from all those patches. And if the release candidate (maybe after some bugfixing cycles) proves to be stable enough for general use, it gets released as the next Linux Kernel Series 2, 4th stable Feature Set version (a.k.a. Linux Kernel 2.6.(n+1)).

Re:Here's an idea...

[Cthefuture]

It's not exactly the same. It's version 5.1 build 2600. A build number is a lot different than an actual version number.

Personally I think many projects (especially open-source) are getting out of hand with the version numbers. Just look at some of the version information on some Debian packages.

I mean, you have stuff like version "testing-4.3.0.dfsg.1-12.0.1". Does no one else see that as insane? I know each part has a purpose, but it seems more like improper project management. Is this possibly caused by a lack of proper scheduling? Things take too long and people start branching off into separate sub-versions.

It's the same thing with the kernel. I see no reason for official kernels to have so many frickin sub-versions. KISS, please. I think you reach a certain point and then the versions have lost all meaning. End-users can't keep track of all this stuff. Please implement better project management practices and just do actual releases with a simple versioning scheme.

What was wrong with the old way?

[AdamHaeder]

What was wrong with .4 being stable and .5 being test? Why not start a .7?

I haven't been following the kernel mailing list, but as a regular linux user from way back, I'm not clear on why the old way was dropped. This way seems a lot more confusing to me.

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[A beautiful mind]

The developers just felt there is no urgent need for 2.7 yet and also that 2.6 can accept more features in a semi-stable state than it would be truly a need for 2.7.

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[Atzanteol]

They're trying for a more rapid development cycle. 2.6 hasn't feature frozen like in the past.

It seems to be what the vendors want. RedHat 2.4 kernels have so much 2.6 stuff back-ported they're barely 2.4 anymore.

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[Malor]

I've only ever had one comment modded down as Flamebait.... this may be #2.

As near as I can tell from reading recent comments on this particular decision, the single biggest reason they don't want to do 2.7 is because not enough people will test it. Only by calling it 'stable' can they get enough testers. Of course, the fact that it will now never really BE stable, seems to have been lost on them.

This is better than what they have been doing, but only slightly. What Linus seems to really want is for everyone in the whole world to be using the very most recent kernel. He wants, in essence, everyone in the world to be beta testers. By putting out new code and calling it 'stable', he gets hundreds of thousands of testers, and is able to shake out bugs much faster.

Apparently, the possibility that it might be banks and hospitals that are discovering these bugs didn't occur to them. Discovering a bug is an EXTREMELY PAINFUL PROCESS for someone who isn't expecting one. So instead of doing the nasty hard work of maintaining separate stable and development branches, they push that pain onto everyone else in the world.

Personally, I want software that works more than I want the latest whizbang feature. That's why I got onto Linux in the first place, a decade ago... I was frustrated with Windows. It was such a delight to run software that never, ever crashed. It was crude, it was simple, but it was *incredibly* reliable, and that more than any other single thing is why I switched.

I find it quite ironic that Windows 2003, in the hands of capable admins, with all its design flaws and warts, is substantially more stable than is Linux. There's a reason Ars Technica switched from Linux to Windows, and stayed there. If anyone on the planet is competent, it's those guys. And from the sound of it, they're very happy with the results.

At this point, I'm so disgusted with this state of affairs that I'm running a test installation of FreeBSD. Their development cycle is much saner. They don't have as many features, but the ones they DO have, seem to work. Maybe they should add a new motto: "Software by Adults, for Folks Who Could Lose Their Job if it Breaks".

*sigh*

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[Zork the Almighty]

Well, eventually you have to lock it down and call it stable. Their problem stems from trying to get too much milage out of each version. Just because 2.4 and 2.6 were huge leaps doesn't mean that will always be the way to go. They should lock down 2.6, put the "semi-stable" features into 2.7, and release 2.8 in a year or a year and a half. Save the big changes for 3.0. Unless they have some secret plan to konquer the world, nothing good will come from the current process.

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[pikine]

Indeed, I feel that 2.6 was pushed out prematurely, but many features in it are desparately needed for publicity (for example, a working ACPI), so the kernel needs the "stable" status to give people incentive to use.

The fact that kernel developers are still adding new features suggest that it is still a development kernel. Stable kernels are for bug fixes. If they need new features to fix existing bugs, that's when they should bump up the stable version number.

However, I think version number is already obsolete for Linux kernels. We should be able to manage patchsets as if they're software packages, complete with dependency and conflict information that are automatically computed. When you want a "patch" to be included in your kernel, it looks for patches it depends on, checks to see whether it results in a conflict, and apply the patches. Periodically, "metapatches" are updated to depend on the most recent patches along some feature. More intricacies need to be worked out.

Assuming (0) that there is a demand for such a patch manager---I think the problem with developing it is that (1) it's difficult to develop a realistic test project from ground up using the patch manager, so the patch system can show that its design is useful, and (2) if we use an existing large software project (such as the Linux kernel), programmers for the patch manager would spend too much time following the development for that other project, rather than have useful work done; they might not want to do it. In general, we want to test the patch manager on a big project, but we also risk wasting too much time on the test project.

It would be best if the developers of a large project (can also think about the Linux kernel) will take the initiative into developing a patch manager, since they have a demand for it (or can be convinced to have a demand), already have a realistic software product, and are willing to follow the development of their own project.

I'm saying that there is a seed for an innovative patch management and revision control system from maintaining a Linux kernel. They should do something about it.

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[cerberusss]

I've only ever had one comment modded down as Flamebait.... this may be #2.

That's because your post smells like a troll.

Personally, I want software that works more than I want the latest whizbang feature

So, Linus barged into your office with a gun, demanding you run the latest kernel?

For what you want (sane development cycle), there are DISTRIBUTIONS. What's wrong with distributions, I ask you?

I'm a RedHat (not Fedora) man myself, but the sysadmins at work prefer Debian. To each his own, but there is noone that forces an unstable kernel down your throat.

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[Hackeron]

Arstechnica you say? -- isnt it ironic their site was down for atleast 5 hours about a week back?

Also, look at their uptimes on netcraft. There average uptime plummeted to about half since they switched to windows. Sure its still "good enough", but how can you possibly say 2003 is more stable that linux? - especially substantially more stable?

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[moonbender]

There's a reason Ars Technica switched from Linux to Windows, and stayed there.

Yes, there is. Quoted from their article on the redesign:

Q. Why did you change over from Linux?

A. This is a loaded question, so we'll be brief. Ars started out on Windows NT back in 1998, but shortly after that we moved to FreeBSD, and then later, Linux. We ran Linux until March of 2004, when we made the move to Windows Servers. Linux and Apache had served us quite well, but when we turned to look at building our new CMS, .NET was simply so attractive for our needs that we felt it warranted the switch. If there are enough requests, we may do an article later documenting our thought process, but for now I'll say that the decision was largely a programming one, with the added benefit of the fact that more of us support Windows in our real lives than Linux.

I don't know - did they ever release that article documenting the thought process?

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[legirons]

"There's a reason Ars Technica switched from Linux to Windows, and stayed there. If anyone on the planet is competent, it's those guys."

From the sounds of things, everyone competent there was utterly against the WindowsNT switch, which was introduced by management, caused horrible delays in shipping all their products, and caused most of the technical guys to leave.

But it sounded so much better as a soundbyte

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[houghi]

I don't know - did they ever release that article documenting the thought process?

Yes, it says:
What were we thinking?

Re:What was wrong with the old way?

[dont_think_twice]

Apparently, the possibility that it might be banks and hospitals that are discovering these bugs didn't occur to them.

Please name the banks or hospitals that upgrade kernels every time Linus make a point release. If they really exist, I want to be sure to stay clear of them.

I for one...

[pergamon]

...welcome our new many.version.levels.over.lor.ds.

This should help, if disciplined

[SpaceLifeForm]

The key is to make sure that the patches for the .y version are clean and really make sense from a stability standpoint *ONLY*. New functionality does not belong here.

Right now, I consider 2.6 not stable enough for my own use. If I cannot compile and boot a Linus kernel on a simple install of GNU/Linux (whether SuSE or Debian) without major headaches and/or chasing down patches, well, that's not stable enough for me. YMMV.

Back in 2.4, I wasn't really happy until 2.4.18, and with all of the changes in 2.6, I won't be surprised to see it meet my definition of stable until 2.6.20 at the current pace.

So, I'm hoping that this new approach will really help.

Re:This should help, if disciplined

[MarcQuadra]

What exactly are you doing that 2.6 isn't cooked-enough for your needs yet?

I'm really curious because I felt that after the disaster that the early 2.4 series was, the kernel team really pushed a good 2.6 release out and it's been quite smooth from 2.6.5.

Are you running strange hardware or binary-only drivers or something?

Re:This should help, if disciplined

[fishbowl]

"Are you running strange hardware or binary-only drivers or something?"

I have had severe problems with consoles on the Radeon framebuffer device (fixed since 2.6.10),
and also serious trouble with IDE CD writers (which is partly a kernel issue, partly client software).

In 2.6.11, I can get a CD writer to work if I put it as Master as /dev/hdc, on it's own ide bus with no hdd. The same configuration is never a problem under 2.4.

Other than these specific issues, 2.6 has not been a problem for me, but both these issues have been showstoppers. (The console on the framebuffer on a Radeon card is an absolute requirement of mine, as is CD writing to an ATAPI device.)

I wonder...

[Anonymous Cumshot]

If this will make Andres Salomon security & bug fixes patchset obsolete since it pretty much focuses on the same things that Linus wants to see for the 2.6.x.y releases..

FYI, Andres Salomon's patchset provides the foundation for Debian's kernels and has been discussed recently on kerneltrap here and here.

Why use x-y?

[J_Omega]

I'd have preferred r-theta polar coordinates.

Re:Why use x-y?

[aliasptr]

Having been doing a lot of complex analysis lately, I enjoyed this comment! Totally off topic and all but cartesian coordinates are "overrated" granted they are the most "natural" but anyone doing any kind of math/science/engineering has no doubt seen the incredible usefulness of other coordinate systems. "Alternative" three dimensional coordinate systems prove very useful for lots of integrals becasue of the symmetry. Anyway yeah... moving on.

Re:Why use x-y?

[fbjon]

I'd have preferred r-theta polar coordinates.

True, they are much better for the development cycle

Re:Why use x-y?

[J_Omega]

Depends on what you consider "natural" though, right? I'm willing to bet that the first human use of a coordinate system was polar. ie. "go 1000 paces, that-a-way"

Re:Why use x-y?

[MarkRose]

That, my friend, is a rad idea!

Dunno

[ThisNukes4u]

I don't know what's up with the kernel devs, but I for one just want a stable kernel without having to resort to specific distro kernel patches. They have not been able to provide that on the mainline since 2.6 has been released(in my opinion, from my observations). They should have forked 2.7 awhile ago if they were going to be pulling this and put the new code in there. Hopefully this new way of distinguishing between stable and unstable releases will help a bit, but I'm not keeping my hopes up. It may be time to switch to a BSD if they can't get their act together.

Re:Dunno

[LnxAddct]

Linus has openly stated that stock kernel's are not what they used to be and never will be. He said the responsibility now lies in the hands of distributions. Personally this doesnt change much for most, but its important to note that Linus's goal is no longer to make a kernel that is easy to use straight from the souce through compilation to actual usage, that burden is now distrbuted amongst the distros.Linus still attempts to achieve it, but it is no longer a priority, his goal is to simply advance the kernel's capabilities.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Dunno

[tehdaemon]

"Expect major disruptions if they ever decide to revamp some kernel component like paging or smp."

If you would recall a recent interview Linus did, he said that there probably wasn't going to be anything like that in the near future, except possibly the tty stuff. Mostly just work on drivers and such. I would not be too surprised if the real reason that there is no 2.7 branch now is because there simply isn't any major system that needs a rewrite.

release numbering ad absurdum

[Anonymous Coward]

/me anxious awaits the release of kernel 3.14.1.59.265.35.897.93238462643383279...

Re:release numbering ad absurdum

[koreaman]

Only when Donald Knuth takes over the Linux kernel...

it wasn't until 2.6 ..

[Hohlraum]

that i regularly have seen breakages with stable hardware upon upgrading from one "stable" kernel release to the next. Granted most of them have been ACPI .. which is just a joke. All I gotta say in 2.7 please.

Yeah, I agree, LinuS kernel is not good for prod.

[melted]

Yeah, I agree, Linus kernel is not good for production use. Give Linus a good thwack on the forehead and he may die. Or he may not. It's unpredictable and unacceptable.

Now back in my day, kernels were only found in nuts.

Re:Ummm

[Zorilla]

The preceding post has been brought to you by the Automated Joke Destroyer 5000.

Unavoidable

[Mark_MF-WN]

I think this is the unavoidable result of the Linux kernel's versatility. It's designed to be able to run on such a wide variety of hardware, from wee little embedded chips to multiprocessor monstrosities. It's able to run with some much old, obsolete hardware, cutting edge hardware, specialized hardware, etc. There's constantly new hardware coming out that needs to be supported, specific security requirements, etc. There's no way for the Kernel team to have it be everything to everyone at once. The natural result is the it's up to a distributor to put it all together, and choose appropriate combinations of patches.

There's nothing that wrong with depending on an organization (be it commercial like Mandrake or non-profit like Debian) to put together an appropriate Kernel for you. That's not to say you shouldn't give BSD a crack (diversity encourages vigour after all), but I don't think there's anything wrong with the way Kernel development is taking place. Those who needs a rock-solid unfliching kernel can always use a 2.4 series kernel, or use BSD (as you suggested).

Kernel enthusiasts

[Dragon Rojo]

I just have finished compiling this 2.6.11.0.0.0.0.1 kernel. Damn 2.6.11.0.0.0.0.2 is out, time to recompile.

Re:Kernel enthusiasts

[ThisIsFred]

Don't bother. All they fixed were some spelling errors in the comment lines.

You know

[mcc]

Linus Tourvalds keeps insisting he's just a coder and nothing more, and Alan Cox and everybody keep insisting he's just a coder and nothing more, but watching him in situations like this... he really is is disturbingly competent as a project manager. Like, to a degree that betrays a large amount of talent. I think he and others really sell him short... but of course one of the reasons he's so effective is because the relatively unassuming way in which he approaches things means people's attention is diverted elsewhere, thus allowing him to actually get stuff done :P

Re:You know

[marcushnk]

I'll agree with that.. I've watched a few of the lkml threads and his skill at herding cats in scary...

Linus should adopt my method, explained here

[aendeuryu]

Okay, you've got your x.0 release. These are for major releases of the software. 1.0, 2.0, etc.

Then you've got your x.x.0 release. Basically, you subdivide your release schedule according to the major tasks needed to get there. So, for instance, if you're creating a video player, 0.1.0 would be to get something proof-of-concept running some basic video codec. 0.2.0 would be for major GUI additions, 0.3.0 would be for extra codeces, etc. These should adhere to a strict roadmap.

Next, you've got the x.x.x release. So, let's say that you're at the GUI stage above, if you've added the player buttons, you're at 0.1.1 (0.2.0 should be reserved for completion of the GUI stage -- are you writing this down?). A menu means 0.1.2, a status bar, 0.1.3 etc. Once more, this should also adhere strictly to the roadmap.

However, you might run into situations where a bug might creep up, and you want to do an extra release between x.x.x releases. This is where you incorporate the a/b/c etc. releases -- for minor changes that occur between the smallest parts of the roadmap. So, if you had an eject button that wasn't working, and you wanted to fix that before moving onto the menu bar, you release 0.1.1a. Small video glitch that arose because of this? 0.1.1b.

But then there are situations in which, well, if you're like myself and consider CVS use to be a waste of time, you'll need to upload release candidates on the above. Hence, the need for a "_rc" suffix. So, if you're checking to see if the fix you made to the eject button is working, you'll have to upload 0.1.1a_rc. If someone wants to add a small change, you get 0.1.1a_rc2, and so on. You might find it easier to add the initials of the developer just so you know who is doing what. So, a 0.1.1a_rc2_fg might not be out of the question.

(By the way, it's a good time to mention that it's best to have any project you're working on include the year that it was started. Why? Just because. Trust me. With all the projects out there right now anyway, we're starting to have to recycle names. So anyway, we're working on vid2004-0.1.1a_rc2_fg at this point.)

Now, and most developers will agree with me on this, every now and then you're going to get sick of the roadmap and want to deviate from it. Maybe add a feature or something ahead of time, just because you find that more motivating than doing extra testing on some module that's probably going to be obsolete by version 0.3.4a_rc3_fg_rt anyway. For these special instances, a descriptive "_plus" is in order.

If you want to see this versioning system in action, check out the latest release of my own project: dml2xml2004-0.4.12aq_plus_rc3.5_a_mdc_ls.tar.gz.

What? Too confusing you say? Just try it. I've found that all three users of my project have no trouble following this extremely clear numbering system.

Hopefully Andres Salomon will keep on going

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully Andres won't stop.

Linus only wants to put security patches and patches to bugs which cause a kernel hang or oops or compile failure to get into the 2.6.x.N patches:

- some very _technical_ and objective rules on patches. And they should
limit the patches severely, so that people can never blame the sucker
who does the job. For example, I would suggest that "size" be one hard
technical rule. If the patch is more than 100 lines (with context) in
size, it's not trivial any more. Really. Two big screenfuls (or four,
for people who still use the ISO-ANSI standard 80x24 vt100)

Also, I'd suggest that a _hard_ rule (ie nobody can override it) would
also be that the problem causes an oops, a hang, or a real security
problem that somebody can come up with an exploit for (ie no "there
could be a two-instruction race" crap. Only "there is a race, and
here's how you exploit it"). The exploit wouldn't need to be full code
that gets root, but an explanation of it, at least.

Andres also patches things that are plain broken, e.g. "sound doesn't work any more". By the law Linus established above, those kind of patches are forbidden to go into 2.6.x.N.

So the 2.6.x.N patches are extremely minimalistic. They are not sufficient for the average joe who wants to run a vanilla kernel. Those of us who want to run a vanilla kernel (with official patchset) and maybe some self chosen patches still need the -as patches badly! There are many people out there who are their own kernel distributors (i.e. have their own personal patchset and want to apply it to the latest stable kernel.) It does not make sense that thousands of kernel distributors are all trying to do the job Andres does now for all of them officially.

So I hope Andres will keep up with his good work.

I don't like it

[erroneus]

I think Linus is very right that it will create a lot of headache for a lot of well-meaning people. It will also create a bunch of little dictators whose mark in Linux history will be more important to them than the continual growth and evolution of the one main kernel progression.

I think instead, it is better to identify any kernel branch by the maintainer or distribution it comes from... pretty much as it already is. When I first started using Linux, I thought nothing of compiling a new kernel and getting things all tweaked out, installing patches and stuff like that. But lately, I see value in following structure in systems such as seeking out RPMs rather than compiling new things. It is far more simple and a lot less frustrating at times trying to keep up with my own set of kernel patches. (Oh, I cannot upgrade to the newest kernel because the So-n-so patch hasn't been updated yet) While the same is true or even slightly worse when it comes to RPM dependency, there is at least some structure and predictability to be found.

I predict that the change will be short lived as it will be found that people will become frustrated with keeping up with all these kernel revisions.

Two things I neglected to mention

[aendeuryu]

1) Some people might suggest that it's a good idea to put the md5 sum in the version. I couldn't agree more. In these days of rip-offs and trojans, you can't be too careful. I haven't been doing this with dml2xml2004 just yet, but it should become standard in one of the upcoming 3 1/2 releases.

2) Others might think that based on the way debian does things, you might want to put "stable" or "unstable". With all due respect to the folks at debian, I personally find this overkill.

Linus rox

[capn_buzzcut]

No kidding, even Linus's most offhand comments are so well thought out and plain spoken that it's a pleasure to read. Wanna know why he's in charge of the Linux kernel? Just read. He's so common sense and matter-of-fact about everything that it's easy to see why everyone gravitates to him. And no, I'm no kernel hacker, just a Linux geek. But just reading his occasional emails is more than enough to make me want to convert everything on the network. Sometimes I get caught up in the issue du jour, but Linus's plainspoken sense of reality always reels me back in. Again, I'm no kernel hacker, but I'm constantly aware of the huge debt I owe to Linus, and every other open-source developer. You guys make things possible, I just use your work. Thank You.

Java OS

[ChunderDownunder]

Checkout JNode

Their goal is to write a complete operating system in Java.

BSD

[ari_j]

So you're saying that OpenBSD isn't dead, but that it will probably not procreate after it becomes legal for it to marry a same-sex operating system?

Really stable?

[GrouchoMarx]

Does this mean that 2.6.x releases will actually be stable and reliable again? After getting burned by 2.6.8 and 2.6.9 (both of which had show-stopping bugs that, for instance, kept my CD burner from working or various USB-based devices, all of which worked again magically in 2.6.10), I'm now very wary of new "stable" kernel versions. On the one hand I'd like to stay up to date to get the latest security patches, but on the other I really don't need my USB ZIP drive to stop working every other kernel version. Handling individual security patch files is more trouble than it's worth for a home system, frankly (I'd rather have a life), so that's out. So what's a moderately security-minded user who wants a reliable system to do?

If going down another point level for bug fixes will help the problem, then I'm all for it. Just make it clear what people like me should be downloading. :-)

Re:Yeah, I agree, LinuS kernel is not good for pro

[fbjon]

If you give your nuts a good thwack, you'll find those kernels are equally unstable.

Re:Well, we appreciate it

[nate nice]

When you're getting paid a boatload to do it.

Scared of 3

[squoozer]

What is with people. Most open source projects seem to be scared of the number 1 so every piece of software is 0.x.y.z now the kernel people have become afraid of 3 (or maybe 7) either way this is just silly. I can see it now, in twenty years time we will be up to 2.9.9.9.9.3.8.1 because nobody will take the plunge and call it 3. At least the emacs people got a grip and just dropped the 0.

Re:Scared of 3

[GoCoGi]

No, that's okay. It should only become 3 when it becomes binary-incompatible with userspace applications.

Re:Scared of 3

[Ulric]

The numbering system used by many, not all, projects is major.minor.teeny:

• Bugfixes increment the teeny number.
• New, backwards compatible features increment the minor number and set teeny to 0.
• Changes that break backwards compatibility increment the major number and set the minor and teeny numbers to 0.

And of course, the major number starts out as 0, so the only way the major number could be anything else is by introducing incompatible changes.

Libraries use similar rules, or at least rules with the same effect, except that many libraries have separate so-numbers (which dictate compatibility) and "marketing" numbers.

Confused?

[wiggles]

See this.

version naming is political art

[10am-bedtime]

well, i'm not a big fan of prescriptive labeling in general.

Cisco's model

[Hobart]

It would be nice if more people used Cisco's model for IOS (outlined here) ...

Re:Stable Kernel [Re:What was wrong with the old w

[Malor]

Debian Stable is, indeed, very stable. It is also very difficult to use in real life, because virtually anything that's non-Debian-provided won't work on such old versions of libraries, and many developers simply refuse to work on such old versions of software. Every time I have tried to stick with Debian Stable, that decision has been overruled by management because the developers hate it.

All I'm fundamentally asking for is this: I want security fixes to Linux WITHOUT NEW FEATURES. I don't have time to study the new features with every kernel rev. I need drop-in-and-forget kernels. But I often don't trust the distributions to do it either, they're constantly adding all sorts of crap I don't want or need in my kernels.

Running a fairly secure Linux box means, among many other things, disabling all modules, but there are no vendor-supplied kernels I know of that don't use modules. If you want a monolithic kernel, you have to compile it yourself. And for that reason, I have tracked the 'stable' tree for years. And I am FURIOUS that the stable tree is no longer stable, that I'm getting new features with my security patches, like it or not. If I want new features with my service packs, why not run friggin' Windows again? Someone MAY backport the bug fixes, but then again, they may not. They're sure gonna have a damn hard time of it when Linus is silently fixing security problems WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE.

2.4 did add small things... new device drivers, that sort of thing. But they weren't doing the huge monkeying around with things that they continue to do with 2.6. They only put bugfixes in the core: the only things added were ancillary, optional, and easy to turn off. (well, since about 2.4.11, when Linus finally got sane and went off to 2.5)

2.6, on the other hand, has been a complete disaster from a security and administration viewpoint. Silent, unannounced security fixes to the kernel, new features rolled out constantly in a 'stable' series, instability on even small servers. (see my post above for how 2.6 sort of cost me $800.) One kernel dev said that it is acceptable for 1 kernel out of 3 in the 'stable' series to actually be stable!! This is not how to run a railroad.

People are saying 'you should be using 2.4', but 2.6 is STABLE, remember? I should be able to use it freely. People telling me not to use 2.6 yet are PROVING THE POINT, that it's NOT STABLE. I don't think it's going to get there until they stop adding features and branch off to 2.7.