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.
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
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.
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.
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
That's a bold statement.
Arm cleanup. (who oh who)
Big kernel lock. (recently declared complete)
Really really fast. (top of wish list...)
Gnome 3.0 deserved the update of the major version number because the libraries it depends on have been extensively revised (GTK+ went to version 3.0, for example).
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.
But I guess the marketing mentality somehow, somewhere, has taken over.
Hardly. It was already broken, the "2.6" part of the number was completely irrelevant, and whereas it might not bother you, if you're talking about version numbers all day every day, having superfluous data in there will get annoying. So yeah, the "upgrade" is misleading but from now on the version bumps more accurately reflect the scale of change in the kernel.
Anyway, who markets the kernel? Distros are marketed, nobody cares about the kernel who doesn't already know what's going on.
This is far more a case of developers wanting a version number system that makes sense to the current kernel development model than anything else.
> 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.)
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.
Well, under the current development model "2.6" is essentially static, It's like OS X always remaining OS X rather than move to OS XI, OS XII, OS XIII etc. as there's absolutely no work on a "2.7" branch and probably never will be.
The 2.6.x changes are far bigger than a 0.0.1 change should be, I mean it's the main development release. Making them 0.1 changes is more than reasonable. The stabilization team will get to move up from 4th to 3rd digit so 3.0.3 rather than 2.6.40.3. Simpler, shorter all around.
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
Also are you arguing that Gnome 3 isn't a radical enough departure breaking enough eggs to warrant it's version number? Sounds to me like most people complain it's too different from Gnome 2.x. In this case, you seem to argue Linux 3.0 will be too similar to Linux 2.x. Is there a way to win here?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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)
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?
Do you have any clue how different 2.6.40 is to 2.6.0?
Do you have any clue how different 2.6.0 was to 2.4 or even 2.0?
Do you have any clue how to compare those differences?
Do you have any clue how to close the bold tag?
Do you have any clue whatsoever?
Like that Volkerstein guy did.
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.
Linus want to celebrate Linux 20th.
Why yes he does.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
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
It's his toy, if you want you can take the code and give it whatever version number you like there is nothing stopping you.
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.
Linus said "can no longer comfortably count" rather than "can't count". Quite different I think?
It's a case of arthritis in his left thumb. Since he counts in binary using his hands, finger/thumb touching the table for 1 and not touching for 0, any number from 32 to 63 gives him pain.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
That's the nice thing about being in-charge, even if it's a de-facto appointment. You can do whatever the Hell you want, without caring how silly or capricious it is. And you don't have to account for yourself to mostly-anonymous slashdot posters.
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.
Well, they've been at it since 2.6(?) started. Why change now? Cuz it turned out to be less than brilliant idea?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
That's more or less the thinking behind KDE 4.0 too. While I like the new kde a lot I still think it was a mistake to release so early and sometimes I long for the snappiness and low resource usage of KDE 3.5.x. And it still has some quirks although most of the applications are great.
ics
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.
More important things to worry about, maybe?
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 >+
Because at the start of 2.6 there wasn't anything important to worry about?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
This gives the impression that 2.6.40 is more than an incremental update. But 2.6.40 is an incremental update, so IMHO it should have stayed 2.6.40. Renaming it to 3.0 is just so random.
Try comparing the 2.0 kernel to the 3.0.0-rc1 kernel and then tell me again there's no justification for a major version bump.
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.
It is just a minor, incremental update, the 2 in 2.6 has been incremented to 3; you know, instead of the 39 being incremented to 40.
Its not like it jumped to 4 or anything, now -- that wouldn't be an incremental update, indeed!
The 2.6.~inf thing was getting a bit silly, frankly. There's nothing wrong with incremental updates, but at a certain point you if your whole release strategy is about a steady plodding progress forward, you should stop using feature-ish-inspiring version numbers. He didn't, but hey.
Of course, he didn't go with a time-based number, so 3.x makes no more or less sense then the ever approaching 2.6.inf, but if the numbers don't actually make any sort of sense, what's it matter? Its all arbitrary, and he felt like being 3.x.
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.
Mac OS XI?
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.
The 'bold statement' guy was funnier.
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)
So is this.