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: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?

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.

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: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.

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