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.

Comments

The problem with incremental version numbers

[isorox]

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

Re:The problem with incremental version numbers

[Tar-Alcarin]

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

I think that's part of the reasoning behind this; it's just time to reset the bar.
If you have hardware or software that advertises itself as being "linux 2.6 compliant" today, it could still be up to 7 years old, and not give a damn about features added since then.

Re:Really? That's important ?

[master5o1]

Clearly 3.0.0 is 0.4.60 more advanced than 2.6.40.

Version numbers? We can increment them!

[MasterPatricko]

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
 

Re:Version numbers? We can increment them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus is afraid that my prophecy from 2005 is coming true, so he's been trying to cheat destiny (as the 3.0 version codename clearly indicates), but it's too late, with this version number jump Linux has jumped the shark. The End is near, brace yourselves.

Linux: the moribund wraith

When Linux kernel hits version 2.8
and you begin to cry,
turn from Linux to BSD
or along with Linux you, too, shall die.

No amount of kernel hacking
can save Linux from demise,
your skills and knowledge are lacking,
which, frankly, is no surprise.

For your kernel is not eternal,
it is a mere toy which will fry
in the blazing flames of glory
of the BSD flags raised high.

With BSD you get diversity,
with BSD you get stability,
with BSD you get security,
with BSD you get performance and tranquility.
Your kung fu is no match for our ability.

Can you hear him sobbing, your beloved Tux?
He knows what's coming and he, too, thinks Linux sucks.

SlashC*****P**

Re:Really? That's important ?

[maeka]

Clearly 3.0.0 is 0.4.60 more advanced than 2.6.40.

Oh shit! Are you telling me there is a regression in how LInux does arithmetic?

Re:Really? That's important ?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

No, 2.6.40 + 0.3.60 = 2.9.100

I think he meant 1.-6.-40 more advanced.

Re:This gives the impression that 2.6.40 is more

[chocapix]

That's a bold statement.

Not sure about the difference...

[denzacar]

But does anyone else get chills when thinking about the 3.1.1 version somewhere down the road?
You know... as in for workgroups?

Odd version numbers

[OoberMick]

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.

Re:This gives the impression that 2.6.40 is more

[jareth-0205]

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.

Time for a change

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

First base!

[jabberw0k]

Everyone knows minors don't overflow into majors. (And if you thought Naturally was the first baseman, then you don't know Who.)

Re:First base!

[capedgirardeau]

Oh he's on second.

Re:When new numbers meant new features

[jareth-0205]

Now the 3.0 Linux branch is just plain about shiny numbering.

Yup, and is all the better for it. What you don't mention in your list is the fact that the development model changed in 2.6, from a break-> stabilise->break-> stabilise model to one of continuous stable development. The version number system stayed the same, which suggests the same development process of stabilisation with no new features, so this is a newer system that fixes that.

Re:Really? That's important ?

[Goaway]

He is Finnish, but his first language is Swedish.

(PS. This is why you should not choose the language for your web site based on a geographical lookup of the IP address.)

Re:Really? That's important ?

[RDW]

"Can someone please explain what is the difference between 3.0 and 2.6.40 ?"

Linus: The numbers all go to 3. Look, right across the git repository, 3, 3, 3 and...
Interviewer: Oh, I see. And most kernels go up to 2.6?
Linus: Exactly.
Interviewer: Does that mean it's better? Is it any better?
Linus: Well, it's one better, isn't it? It's not 2. You see, most blokes, you know, will be running 2.x. You're on 2.6 here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on 2.6 on your computer. Where can you go from there? Where?
Interviewer: I don't know.
Linus: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Interviewer: Compile it up to 3.
Linus: 3. Exactly. One better.
Interviewer: Why don't you just make 2.6 better and make 2.6 be the top number and make that a little better?
Linus: [pause] These go to 3.

If Linux kernels had microsoft names

[shoppa]

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.

Re:If Linux kernels had microsoft names

[steelfood]

When it hits version 10, they can call it LinuX.

I for one welcome the bump in ver #

[McNihil]

IMHO it should have been done back with 2.6.19 or no later than 2.6.25. Better late than never though.

Re:When new numbers meant new features

[ratboy666]

Oh really...

What about removal of the big kernel lock?
What about plug-in resource schedulers?
What about fast ip locking?
What about kernel video mode switching?
What about systemtap?
What about cgroups?
And much more...

When taken in combination, the growth of the Linux kernel since 2003 definitely warrants a major jump.

The issue is whether it should be 2.8 or 3.0. I would side with 3.0.

Because Linux is now ready for serious MP, both on a local and a cluster level. And these features are not "backwards portable".

Re:Really? That's important ?

[Bing Tsher E]

Actually, he was calculating it in his head because OpenOffice Calc was taking too long to load.

Version numbers in the real world

[dargaud]

In the real (read 'commercial app') world, I've noticed that version numbers go something like this (not all version numbers shown):

• 0.2 // It's not even working on our developper's PC
• 0.4 // We can't sell that yet
• 0.8 // We are trying to sell it
• 1.0 // We are selling it
• 1.1 // Now it works, we swear
• 1.4 // OK, now it's stable
• 2.0 // We know you wouldn't shell out for version 1.5
• 3.0 // Just to keep you updating
• 9 // Honestly we lost track of the minor number too
• 13 // No real difference with version 9
• 2005 // Well, our customers were losing track of the major version number too, so that'll make it easier for them
• 2008 // Hey fatty, time to upgrade, you previous one is 4 years old now, can't you count ?
• 2010 // No change, but, hey, time passes fast
• 1.0 // We had to rename it

About damn time

[spectro]

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.

Re:Really? That's important ?

[aBaldrich]

I prefer to read in well-written English, rather than see them bastardize my mother tongue.