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"?'"
version 2.0 ...
Linus... has... jumped the shark. The number versions... his version control insanities... He's no longer Linux's greatest advantage. He's now doing more to hold back the community than anything else. (dear god this is going to hurt the karma)
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
What did it ever do to you?
Besides, it's accomplished a lot:
In mathematics
Inherent mathematical properties
Twenty-six is a composite number, its proper divisors being 1, 2, and 13. 26 is the only number between a square number and a cube number, the numbers being 25 (5 squared) and 27 (3 cubed). This was first proved by Pierre de Fermat.
It is the 7th distinct biprime (2.13) and the 5th with 2 as its lowest non-unitary prime factor. The aliquot sum of 26 is 16 with an aliquot sequence of 8 members; (26,16,15,9,4,3,1,0), leading to 0 through the prime 3 the 6th composite number so to do and so the sixth member of the 3-aliquot tree.
There is no solution to the equation Ï(x) = 26, making 26 a nontotient. Nor is there a solution to x - Ï(x) = 26, making 26 a noncototient.
In the classification of finite simple groups there are 26 sporadic groups.
Properties of its positional representation in certain radixes
Twenty-six is a repdigit in base three (222) and in base twelve (22).
In base ten, 26 is the smallest number that is not a palindrome to have a square which is (26^2=676).
Twenty-six is the number of five-digit prime quadruplets, the first of which is {13001, 13003, 13007, 13009}[1].
In science
Astronomy
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?
[
The previous post might sound like a troll, but it makes a great point. Debating over version number schemes feels even more arbitrary and trivial than debating over, say, Code names for projects. Do version numbers or project names really have that much of an influence on how well code is written? If Windows had a kernel numbered 1.33.7 with a beta name of "Loopy Longhorn", would it be a better finished product?
(because surely someone must care)
If the 2.6 is not going to change, drop it, it's redundant.
So we're down to 26. I personally find a name like "Linux 28" to be cool. "Linux 41 was released today...". There's nothing wrong with big numbers: see udev.
The problem with date-based numbering is that when you go from 2008.4 to 2008.10, it looks like you missed a few releases. And if you pre-announce a release, you have to meet your deadline or else rename the release.
So they could do what Gentoo does - 2007.0, 2007.1, 2008.0, 2008.1, etc. But you still have the problem that every year, you lose count of how many releases have happened. Was there a 2007.2 or did we just go to 2008.0 because we missed the Christmas deadline due to that last-minute security bug?
They could reduce the problem by using a longer period, such as a decade. (At 6 months for a release, for example, the number will only reach 20, which is not large.) But that's somewhat arbitrary. Plus, being in the 0th decade, we don't want to have 2.6.30 be called 0.3.
To reduce the complexity on all that, just drop the dates, and what's left is a single big number. No dots, no multiple numbers, easy. Linux 112 is fine by me.
What has the kernel to do with printer drivers? It has always been CUPS domain.
Besides, it's not like they don't want to support all the hardware available, it's win-only hardware manufacturers that are the main obstacle towards better hardware support in linux.
Can anyone help? I installed the 2.6.26 kernel on my pentium, but it keeps saying I have version 2.6.25999999999993 installed?
There are multiple bugfix only branches. 2.6.16.x to 2.6.25.x are all still actively maintained.
The simple fact is that the new model has actually caused Linux distros to have more stable kernels now that vendors aren't trying to constantly backport things from the unstable branch.
Shorter dev cycles were one of the best ideas Linus ever had.
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.
_O_
|
_/|\_
me
Talk about rose tinted glasses.. The 2.4 /2.5 split that I remember left me at times with TWO unstable kernel series thanks to 2.5.x not being ready for production yet and maintainers trying to backport drivers and to 2.4.x so it could still handle the latest hardware.
At the worst of it I recall setting up a state of the art server with a SCSI card that crashed randomly on 2.4.x and wouldn't boot on 2.5.x series kernels. Lucky for me the bug was fixed in 2.5.x a week later.
The new way is easy.. new features and drivers get added to the latest 2.6.x-rc only and only bug fixes get added to the old kernels. This means that if I want to be sure I'm rock solid I just install the latest patch to the kernel I'm running and I can be sure no one has tried to add new features or drivers that would otherwise destabilize my stuff.
Why anyone would possibly want to go back to the old way is beyond me.
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(-)
You do realize that if you substitute 2.6.x-rc with 2.7.x, you are doing the same thing we've been doing when we had the experimental branch.
The only difference is that we no longer have to update the minor number, otherwise we would be on version 2.8 (or higher) by now.
I can see the advantages of the current version number scheme as it relates to the traditional desktop/server user.
But you're lucky enough to not have to compile a driver for a non-mainstream piece of embedded hardware, and have to spend time updating the driver code because something that was probably flagged as deprecated in 2.6.8 was removed completely in 2.6.9. However in the old system, the function would be deprecated in the 2.6 kernel and removed in the 2.8 kernel. Under the old system, a driver marked for the 2.6 kernel would compile without modification, but I would expect to have to update the driver for 2.8.
My point being that both number schemes has its advantages, it just the old system benefited me more. Now if we would tag versions that are considered a production release (like I suggested in my previous post), it would be a good compromise since you would continue to benefit from not having so many forks in the kernel and I would benefit by knowing where the removal of deprecated functions have taken place.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
kernel x or if I need to update to kernel y
So you are a fan of letter based versioning then?