Slashdot Mirror
Linus Renames 2.6.40 Kernel To Linux 3.0, Announces Release Candidate
An anonymous reader writes "Linus just released the first -rc of the next kernel series, but rather than continuing development as the Linux 2.6.40 kernel, he has renamed it to be the Linux 3.0 kernel." And he's tacked on a second dot and another zero (3.0.0), at least for now, because many scripts expect and rely on a three-part kernel version.
I've always wondered what the heck with version numbers... Can someone please explain what is the difference between 3.0 and 2.6.40 ?
There's never been a large enough jump in features to justify a major release increment, yet 2.6.40 is more distinct from 2.6.0 than 2.6.0 was from 2.0.0
Duke Nukem Forever, Linux 3.0... what is this world coming to?
I like his 3.0 commit message
"Version numbers? We can increment them!"
Thankfully, Linus hasn't rewritten the kernel in VB.
Also this version has codename "Sneaky Weasel"
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
-VERSION = 2
-PATCHLEVEL = 6
-SUBLEVEL = 39
-EXTRAVERSION =
-NAME = Flesh-Eating Bats with Fangs
+VERSION = 3
+PATCHLEVEL = 0
+SUBLEVEL = 0
+EXTRAVERSION = -rc1
+NAME = Sneaky Weasel
I'd tell a UDP joke, but you may not get it. I'd tell a TCP joke, but I'd have to keep repeating it until you got it.
Up to now, Linus had resisted this fad of jumping major version number to get everyone excited - you know, like these software that cycle normally through version 1.0, 1.1, 1.2... at the beginning of their life, then suddenly become v2.0, v3, v6 SE, 8 XL, 9 UltraTurbo when all they are is just minor releases, then eventually run out of credible major version number and just plain look stupid...
Is there a real reason for skipping 2.8 here, or does Linus want to experience the magical three-dot-oh release effect in his lifetime?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
He really went and did it, eh? Crap. The only thing more annoying then a meaningless bump in version numbers is all the people going to be complaining about how annoying it is.
LFS user here. Will 2.6.39 get the LTS treatment just like 2.6.35 down to 2.6.32? Would be nice to have a stable target for years to come. I have a box that's still using 2.6.16 (formerly LTS) and another that's 2.4.37. Moving up from "minor" releases, e.g. from 2.6.35 to 2.6.36 haven't really been as minor as they used to be. They tend to be somewhat nerve-wracking experiences. Personally sticking to 2.6.35 as long I can.
Certainly 3.0 will be just the same thing as 2.6.40, but easier to remember.
So 4.0 will be incompatible break with the past, once the time comes.
Well I expected some sort of cleanup, but realistically these days it's not a smart move because there is too much of world's software depending on some obscure features of the kernel.
And for now actually nothing serious enough popped up to justify the ABI breakage.
My support for this.
This gives the impression that 2.6.40 is more than an incremental update. But 2.6.40 is>/b> an incremental update, so IMHO it should have stayed 2.6.40. Renaming it to 3.0 is just so random.
I thought the Linux community wasn't shy of just minor, incremental updates. If it ain't broke don't fix it, don't rock the boat etc. But I guess the marketing mentality somehow, somewhere, has taken over. /looks at Gnome 3.0
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Clearly 3.0.0 is 0.4.60 more advanced than 2.6.40.
Hmm, are you forgetting to carry the overflow from minor digit to major digit? In this case, 3.0.0 would be 0.3.60 more advanced than 2.6.40, naturally.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Why change the versioning scheme? When you do this, all you do is exchange one set of shortcomings for another with the added benefit of much confusion.
My experience has been that when autocratic lead developers start doing things like this, they are (getting) bored.
1. It takes at least until version 3 to get (most of) the bugs out.
2. Any version that ends in point-zero is a disaster - wait until the next point release (DOS 4.0, DOS 6.0, Windows 3.0, KDE 4.0)
3. People will now start asking if this means that this will finally be the year of linux on the desktop.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
While this appears to be a semantic change (which somewhat irritates me), I hope they use this opportunity to commit some bigger changes that have been on the cards for a while.
linux-2011-06
linux-2011-09
linux-2011-12
etc.
I wonder how many broken build & configure scripts and runtime version checks will fail because they do not check the major version number.
Oh, right... Sorry.
When Linux 2.0 release june, 9 1996 was the first stable complete workable versatile version.
As of January, 25 1999 Linux 2.2, many new distro was available to average user.
January, 4 2001 Linux 2.4 introduced many device changes. There are still so much embeded devices running the 2.4 kernel.
Decembre, 17 2003 Linux 2.6 stabilized and enhanced changes from 2.4, introduced the fully able IPv6 stack.
Now the 3.0 Linux branch is just plain about shiny numbering.
Léa Gris
Arm cleanup. (who oh who)
Big kernel lock. (recently declared complete)
Really really fast. (top of wish list...)
But does anyone else get chills when thinking about the 3.1.1 version somewhere down the road?
You know... as in for workgroups?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
There will be no significant changes or magic features in 3.0, it's _just_ a rename... but why? Linus said that 40 is a big enough to deal with, just like that.
My understanding is that the jump to 3.0 is simply that they no longer want to have the second digit even means stable and odd means unstable versioning any more. So rather than going to 2.7.0 and having everyone assume it's unstable or skipping 2.7.0 and going straight to 2.8.0 just to maintain an old and unused version system, they have went with 3.0.
This is clearly a waste of time. Changing numbers just for the sake of changing numbers.
The argument Linus gave for the change is something you would be fired for where I work. Forty is too big a number ?????? What?!
> Is there a real reason for skipping 2.8 here
What makes you think there shouldn't be a 2.10.x and 2.12.x?
Moral: Version numbers are just that, numbers. Personally, I would have preferred 11.05 but as long as the Kernel remains healthy, they can start naming it after cereal for all I care.
This is a complete outrage. Not only will it require extensive re-testing but distros will need to change as well.
I believe it's time for us to fork the GNU/Linux kernel to a more appropriate versioning scheme, while removing all non-libre blobs at the same time. Only then can we depose this dictator Torvalds and his pro-capitalist kernel.
Everyone knows minors don't overflow into majors. (And if you thought Naturally was the first baseman, then you don't know Who.)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 529d93f..afb8e0d 100644 (file)
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
-VERSION = 2
-PATCHLEVEL = 6
-SUBLEVEL = 39
-EXTRAVERSION =
-NAME = Flesh-Eating Bats with Fangs
+VERSION = 3
+PATCHLEVEL = 0
+SUBLEVEL = 0
+EXTRAVERSION = -rc1
+NAME = Sneaky Weasel
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
He explains it all. If you don't have a clue about the subject then shut the fack up.
about Linux ME.
Changing numbers just to change numbers is a waste of time. The reasoning Linus gives for the change is absolutely worthless. He can't count to 40. what!? Where I work you would get fired for something like this.
This wastes everyones time and causes unnecessary confusion. If at least he said something like "It makes people talk about Linux" or "We wanted to celebrate our good work by tagging 3.0" I might have accepted the reasoning. I think the features between 2.6.40 and 3.0.0 have not earned the 3.0.0 badge.
If linux kernels had microsoft marketing setting the names, we wouldn't have decimal points etc.
It would be "Linux NT", "Linux 95", "Linux Server 2003", "Linux XP", "Linux Vista", "Linux 7".
Just think how much more marketable Linux could be and how much more the suits would want to buy it.
Since Android 3.0, WebOS 3.0 and iOS 3.2 were tablet operating systems, does that mean???
IMHO it should have been done back with 2.6.19 or no later than 2.6.25. Better late than never though.
Spartans! Prepare for glory!
"I decided to just bite the bullet, and call the next version 3.0. It will get released close enough to the 20-year mark, which is excuse enough for me, although honestly, the real reason is just that I can no longe rcomfortably count as high as 40," said Linus.
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing."
GNU 3.0.0?
Then Stallman can say "GNU 3 is not GNU. It should be called GNU GNU. Ouch! My head hurts!"
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Linux ME (aka Linux Millennium Edition)
Long Live SL!!!
ssh-dss AAAAB3NzaC1kc3MAAACBAOW8CkHHDmwv3ZES/Z5hFMRQEKS/UNEyJU272/E/KChoAtWe4ImX
91MRfX3PkeqGbdOWi8oBKCTUF76aUWOYTkLNKM/kgyE5IdTIboh7Yg8NhqQe9Y8Am50PTX3xtYmd5aUd
yDAmCW+Wrq4f6IBAMaOWUmztdAeAVI+kPsGT+qW/AAAAFQCvwds0FwtfX113DBGEa43Yeosq9QAAAIEA
04z4dtCqeW09JfgocMQvvqtBG3cDt7GyfMzju/XCYlMQFgKQd3ClLK6cbKQ3dFumMEKzVHME/bCNAIli
naYODlSOIoEa3uFmCxOYbegy2oipTUBobGhU9U379YywHQfztxmUYJp5nCiiW+KDkEc2lB6IggRZi3fQ
qaYt01ygc8AAAACBAI4dvLYbwe0AvJm/Wd3Bts/DXqjnzZLrXldG2OYwoZ6xuFKnWsqpa9+DdJn+BlDL
ye1/vbLkXgirYlUAePI/mtgkqb3zQnHJ7NKzN3l4AKmJ5VElyXx2n4ijhfko0inEc76vWXXnwyQFAD90
5/r6FYrTthgzN390Q/vUR5alyXGm
Does he own it?
Just think, the marketing flakes will all be able to say "Our new product uses Linux 3.0! Everyone else is using that old, outdated 2.6 stuff."
I had always subscribed to the methodology that the third digit was for bug fixes. The second was for minor features and the first for a major new version. As I learn (or attempt to learn) about Linux development I see that there are so many little esoteric changes and/or new features every time a new version comes out that I have no idea if upgrading is really worth the effort.
Now we know exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: 2.6.39. Move along, nothing to see here.
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
then eventually run out of credible major version number and just plain look stupid...
Anything wrong with 10, 11, 15, 70, 200?
Like that Volkerstein guy did.
This is teh R0x4r.!!!!
Linux enters it's 3rd decade soon, that's the sole reason.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
It's not karma whoring when it's done for just the joy of being a nerd. Who pooed in your drinky?
Non-Linux Penguins ?
According to Linux there's an ancient Sumerian prophecy which imply that the moon will explode if they called it 3.0. I hope they decoded those old tablets wrong because this could mean the end of the world. See http://joebarr.sys-con.com/node/32801 question 3.
Easy +1 for the pointless and off-topic anti-Microsoft post.
Why'd you feel the need to bring them up, anyhow?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
...when Linus Torvalds becomes a pawn of the digitary-industrial complex.
I could never understand what is with all these digits in version numbers. If it was up to me the kernel would be in version 8.x or 9.x already.
What's with open source and all these version numbers starting with 0.x?. Why are they so afraid of just a freaking number? I've been using mythtv for about 10 years and they just released version 0.24.1 *facepalm*
Linus just realized that version numbers are about marketing more than anything else. Microsoft has been doing this for decades. I should buy me some redhat stock.
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
Linux for Workgroups!
Most smartphones are way faster than a P2. I'm not sure if that is good or bad, as I had a $2000 P2 (300MHz Klamath) too.
So then, the problem with Windows is that MS didn't number the releases properly? So, that's why they largely gave up on numbers for a while. They go from 3.11 to 95 to 98 then to a weird Me thing, before skipping all the way to 2000. After which they went XP to Vista before going all the way back to 7.
Thank you, I finally get the problem, MS developers can't count. Thankfully they fixed the problem. The next release was going to be Windows Eleventy thousand billion.
At last! My Microsoft experience has taught me to wait for the third version before buying. Sounds like the Linux that Microsoft users have been waiting for!
So this thing is finely stable, right? Like DOS 3?
Place nail here >+
This year will be the year of Linux. Version 3.0 will put the final blow to Windows and MacOS X. Yeahy!! :)
Don't laugh. The first Linux distribution I used was "Slackware 96". (Which contained the Linux 2.0.0 kernel.) Perhaps one-upping "Windows 95" in the naming subconsciously persuaded me to give it a try.
This has been in the pipeline for a while now and it kinda makes sense. Currently the 2.6.xxx has so many versions, it is no longer clear which is from when. His reasoning for the 3.0 as Linus says is that 2 decades have passed in the linux kernel development (Sounds like he's trying to avoid a conflict by giving a reason which cannot be argued against). But it also feels like the 3rd generation in linux kernels too with all the new hardware nowadays.
I feel somewhat relieved by this move.. its like i have been holding my breath for decades and can let it go now!
The last person to mod me down is a rotten egg..... there.. that should do it..
And to be really confusing, Windows 7 is actually Windows 6.1, or saying as there was never an NT1 or NT2, it is probably actually Windows 4.1.
Have one on me. :-)
Mac OS XI?
What is the point of maintaining a versioning schemes if you seek to undermine it for political reasons unassociated with actual scope or effect of changes?
It will be interesting to see how many people stick with a 2.x series kernel normally than they would otherwise simply because they *think* an abnormal amount of change is present in 3.x.
Linus must have looked at the number and thought, my god!, that's my age, and decided he want them younger.
Shouldn't a kernel which jumps to 3.x contain something groundbreaking to warrant more than a 0.1 increase?
I've seen hardware like an awful touchscreen flat panel or an embedded arm board that reportedly support "linux 2.6" in their marketing materials. This could literally mean they ship a kernel module or patches or whatever that haven't worked with a current kernel for something like **7 years**! Yes, we should have meaningless version bumps in the kernel, but they should happen more often than once or twice each decade.
No, the error is included for backwards compatibility to early Pentium processors. Linux NEVER abandons a platform.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
But the systemtap devs don't seem overly concerned.
Till then it's all just incremental.
Deleted
Windows 95 was internally labelled as Windows 3.95 because too much softwaare broke in testing when they had it report as Windows 4.0. Also keep in mind that it ran atop DOS 7.0, so they didn't "do away" with the numbering system. It's always been there, through 95, 98, ME, XP, NT, W7.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
A good number of OSS projects seem to have the Google "It is always in beta," thing going on. By that I don't mean that the code isn't ready for general use, but that because it is "beta" you can kinda brush off bugs. If there's something you don't want to fix or a feature that doesn't work right you have the "Oh it is beta" excuse to pull out. To them, 1.0 seems like committing to something major, to stable release quality, and that kind of thing.
I think it is silly. I've always thought version numbers should move relatively rapidly since the whole purpose is to let people know when something is new. Do it as two numbers major.minor. Decide what roughly constitutes a major release and when that happens, increment the first one. Anything else that isn't just a bug fix, increment the second one.
Don't just increment to big numbers randomly, but don't be scared of them. Make it a useful guide for your customers.
Except that it is Mac OS X v. 10.? That is not the Roman numeral for '10' it is the letter X.
You are incorrect. The X stands for 10, as in the Roman numeral. Did you just spew that out without looking it up or did a Mac user tell you that it was pronounced ex? The X in Mac OSX is pronounced Ten. Perhaps you are trolling?
Coincidental for sure but Python made the same jump from 2.6 to 3.0
http://python-history.blogspot.com/2009/01/brief-timeline-of-python.html
(yes there is/was python 2.7 but it was released after 3.0)
Talk is cheap. Supply exceeds demand.
Is this just his way of dealing with mid-life crisis?
Obviously gimp 2.6 will have to be replaced by 3.0 as well.
But now, will a 3.0 kernel also work with KDE 4.6 or would I have to go with a lower version number like Gnome3 ?
I am always fascinated by Linux version numbers. I can't quite figure out what they mean, and I suspect I'm not the only one. Reading that "2.6.40 is more distinct from 2.6.0 than 2.6.0 was from 2.0.0" doesn't make any sense to me. For my projects, I have always intuitively followed the Semantic Versionning principles: x.y.z, where X is a major version, Y is a minor version and Z is a patch release. You increment X when you change the API. You change Y when you add a feature. You change Z when you make a small bugfix. Simple and clear. Linux, on the other hand, seems to follow more the whims of Linus than any logical process, which seems to be a common pattern in this project, and which is not always for the worst though...
Semantics is the gravity of abstraction
So Linux 3.0 is on its way... Which makes me wonder--given that it's a major increment for something that has traditionally been very stable (in terms of API/ABI, etc.), is Linus going to allow breakage or incompatability with 3.0? Or is it just a "yeah, it's been too long, let's just bump it for numbers' sake"?
If version numbering in Linux resembled the method used in FreeBSD, they would be at be version 50 by now. FBSD bumps their major version number every time someone dots an "I" or crosses a "T". Code improvement is not a requirement. More than 5 years since the original wireless "N" draft was released and still the FreeBSD developers have failed to produce drivers for devices that support that protocol. The developers are too busy bumping version numbers to be concerned.
Pigskin-Referee
Linux: Yesterday's technology, tomorrow
IMHO it should have been done back with 2.6.19 or no later than 2.6.25. Better late than never though.
You could almost go by RHEL major versions there... but, speaking of arbitrary:
Does anybody track the number of releases? That is, will Linux 3.0.0 be Linux release #127 or something along those lines? I'd really rather track that kind of number, and if somebody is already doing the counting, so much the better. At a minimum, it would make programming easier.
if (linux_version > 122 && linux_version 149) { ....
}
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
if (linux_version >= 122 && linux_version <= 149) { ....
}
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)