Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linus Renames 2.6.40 Kernel To Linux 3.0, Announces Release Candidate

Posted by timothy on from the thanks-linus dept.

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.

9 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Really? That's important ? by master5o1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Clearly 3.0.0 is 0.4.60 more advanced than 2.6.40.

    --
    signature is pants
  2. Version numbers? We can increment them! by MasterPatricko · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  3. Re:Really? That's important ? by maeka · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  4. Re:Really? That's important ? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, 2.6.40 + 0.3.60 = 2.9.100

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

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  5. Re:This gives the impression that 2.6.40 is more by chocapix · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's a bold statement.

  6. Re:The problem with incremental version numbers by Tar-Alcarin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:When new numbers meant new features by ratboy666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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".

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
  8. Re:Really? That's important ? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  9. Version numbers in the real world by dargaud · · Score: 5, Funny
    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
    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?