Slashdot Mirror
Linus on Kernel Version Numbering
walshy007 writes "In a recent thread it was asked what it would take for an 'unstable' 2.7 development tree to be created, to which Linus replied:
'Nothing. I'm not going back to the old model. The new model is so much better that it's not even worth entertaining as a theory to go back. That said, I _am_ considering changing just the numbering. Not to go back to the old model, but because a constantly increasing minor number leads to big numbers. I'm not all that thrilled with "26" as a number: it's hard to remember. I think the time-based releases (ie the "2 weeks of merge window until -rc1, followed by roughly two months of stabilization") has been so successful that I'd prefer to skip the version numbering model too. We don't do releases based on "features" any more, so why should we do version _numbering_ based on "features"?'"
Linus' idea to switch to date-based version numbering seems excellent to me. From a psychological perspective, humans have difficulties with numbers, especially larger numbers. Also, a purely incremental numbering system without any external relationships (let's call it "semantic anchors" or something) are just that: numbers. By using dates we tie in with an already establish cognitive category which not only tells us the version but also how old it is. Since we Linux folks are usually very conscious about keeping up-to-date (at least the /. crowd) it would be a good and automatic reminder of the state of our system. That is, we use the "date obsolescence effect" (the reason Microsoft stopped naming their software after the year released) to the advantage for security rather than the disadvantage of negative sales.
Er, you don't do a release for specific "features," but once the release has been made, customers rely on knowing what "features" are (or are not) in the release they're using. There should be a sane and rational comparison rule to know if one version is newer (and likely to have more good "features" and fewer bad "features") or not. Ubuntu uses dorky names but anyone who knows the alphabet and the comparison rule can at least decide if "Beaver" is older or newer than "Walrus." I don't care what the kernel uses, but it should be something people can figure out the ordering.
Hey, I heard the Parameterized Ultra-Fair Order One Irreversible Hypoxic Process Scheduler is in the newest kernel. Wait, is that in 2.6.43.-12b34_+omicron-rc6, or not?
[
http://lxr.linux.no/linux/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
Summary: Being able to improve the API regularly keeps Linux largely free of legacy cruft that slows down the development and runtime performance of other systems like Windows. That's why Linux maxes out hardware that runs like a dog under Windows.
Sam ty sig.
It is in part semantics, but at the same time it also represents the core not ostensibly having a bugfix-only branch. Distributions fill in the gap there to an extent. But it does reflect a departure from a lot of common practice of having a branch to follow for those content with featuresets, but needing the security and bug fixes too. As of the no-2.7 branch, this was already the case, this truly is just semantics. But the 2.7 decision was about more than semantics.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
You mean like where Windows hides the registry?
No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
The name of that file cleverly describes its contents, even though it is attempting to describe the argument it 'debunks'.
You can have the best of both worlds (a stable API, and the ability to make changes). The fact of the matter is that the APIs don't change all that often, and frequently they change in a way that would allow for a trivial compatibility layer. Te fact of the matter is that it would *benefit* linux to force the developers of the various driver layers to have to consider interface stability when they make their changes. It would benefit the entire community to make it incredibly difficult for distributors *cough*redhat*cough* to change the driver API for a service layer and release the kernel with the same version number.
Summary: A stable API doesn't mean you're weighed down with cruft, and any argument based on that premise is nonsense. Any intelligent person making that argument is really saying that they think all drivers should be GPL.
I agree. Exactly. It aids non linux developers in troubleshooting issues and knowing if package b will work with package a and kernel x or if I need to update to kernel y.
Your comment conveniently ignores his role in the project. It seems like he doesn't really work at the nuts-and-bolts level of driver development. His comments lately lead one to believe he's pretty satisfied with the overall status of the kernel such that issues like this are important to him.
I know you and the moderators are not satisfied with some aspects of the project, but you would be barking up the wrong tree.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If I see a version number of 2.00, I can ASSume that there are significant changes from 1.X. Also, as an "ohoh" version, it's more likely to have bugs than 2.1.
A year-based version tells me when it was released, but not much else. Maybe there was a major change in August, and V2008.08.01 is an "ohoh" version.
Named versions tell me even less. I might ASSume that "Perfect Penguin" is later than "Ornery Onyx", but I don't know how much has changed, or how long it took to release.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
The POSIX API is hardly obscure, nor are the file system and naming conventions. It's an ISO standard FFS!
C|N>K
"The way to fix this is to mandate that hardware manufacturers publish detailed specifications based upon which FLOSS drivers can be written."
Why?
Why should tell a hardware manufacture what they can and not do?
Because if I am their customer, then I want them to act in a way that serves my interests. That is part of what I want for my money. I understand that I can't expect full indulgence from every hardware manufacturer - but I want them to understand, when I buy a piece of hardware I also want to have all the information necessary to make use of it. That is the message I want to send.
If you don't want to send a similar message, that's your business. I won't tell you you should think otherwise.
Bow-ties are cool.
Your argument is basically that writing shared libraries is just as easy as writing applications, and that maintaining API/ABI compatibility in shared libraries is "easy". Both of which contradict years of experience.
And, specifically from the kernel perspective, the usual example is the Solaris kernel in the 2.3/2.4/2.5 timeframe (memory is getting old) where they refused to fix a security bug because it would break ABI compatibility. So the corollary to your argument then is that Solaris kernel engineers are idiots?
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
Several slashdot readers have made comments like "I can easily upgrade from 2.6.n to 2.6.n+1 because not much will have changed".
This is all part of the delusion of version numbers. The changes between releases are only limited by how many can be squeezed into the merge window. With an increasing number of developers, and development tools that seem to be scaling the overall trend seems to be that the n+1 release is progressively more different that its predecessor. Here are the diffstats for the last few kernels:
2.6.15 -> 2.6.16 6721 files changed, 392461 insertions(+), 202469 deletions(-)
2.6.16 -> 2.6.17 6321 files changed, 416664 insertions(+), 308709 deletions(-)
2.6.17 -> 2.6.18 8972 files changed, 381890 insertions(+), 217058 deletions(-)
2.6.18 -> 2.6.19 8040 files changed, 515161 insertions(+), 291784 deletions(-)
2.6.19 -> 2.6.20 5825 files changed, 262475 insertions(+), 136162 deletions(-)
2.6.20 -> 2.6.21 6568 files changed, 319232 insertions(+), 175247 deletions(-)
2.6.21 -> 2.6.22 7620 files changed, 519591 insertions(+), 266699 deletions(-)
2.6.22 -> 2.6.23 7203 files changed, 406268 insertions(+), 339071 deletions(-)
2.6.23 -> 2.6.24 10209 files changed, 776107 insertions(+), 483031 deletions(-)
2.6.24 -> 2.6.25 9738 files changed, 777371 insertions(+), 404514 deletions(-)
2.6.25 -> 2.6.26 8676 files changed, 595389 insertions(+), 416139 deletions(-)
Date-based versions don't help me very much. What I need/want from a version number is a clue as to how big the changes are. Is this version just bug-fixes and I shouldn't see much impact beyond fixing those errors? Is this a version that's got some significant enhancements and changes but my existing configuration should convert over without too much trouble and, while I'm going to see some impact, it shouldn't break my workflow and documents/code too badly? Or is this a big change with a whole new way of looking at large parts of the system, where I can expect major things to be a lot different and to have to adapt most everything to the new way the world is? The standard 3-part version numbers give me that kind of hint (at least when the developers stick to that accepted interpretation of the parts).