Slashdot Mirror
Linux Kernel 3.1 RC 2 Released
sfcrazy writes "Linus Torvalds has announced the release of Linux kernel 3.1 rc2. He said '300+ commits for -rc2 is good, but please make me even happier for -rc3 by ONLY sending me real fixes. Think of it as "fairly late in the -rc series," because I really want to compensate for the merge window being fairly chaotic.'"
Remember that he dropped the last number from the version, so the difference between 3.0 and 3.1 is the same as something like 2.6.24 to 2.6.25, not 2.4 to 2.6.
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
>Now we see the same thing happening to the Linux kernel.
Not quite. Chrome and FF release major versions often. According to wiki, this is the first major version change of Linux since June 1996.
And linux still has some significance in the numbers after the three numbers, but the x.x.x don't matter, really. They might as well be doing linux 4 and 5 and so on in the coming months. It's because of the way they develop (and, as in the case of linux have been developing for years) - they just do their thing and increase the numbers as they go, like chrome/FF.
Problem solved.
We now return you to your discussion of version 322a8b034003c0d46d39af85bf24fee27b902f48, currently in progress...
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Yeah, the *2.6* SERIES is quite different even from itself. Meanwhile the 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4 series had at least mostly had stabilized API/ABIs during the time of their existance, occasionally getting features backported (Thinking about USB,Wifi, and a few filesystem module primarily there). 2.6 however was having constant and incompatible changes ever 5-10 minor numbers. Devfs droppage, incompatible udev changes (Ever tried updating a system only to have it temporarily hosed because you had the wrong udev version running and all your device entries are now wrong??), constant gfx abi breakage (see nvidia/ati drivers constantly being 2-5 minor nums behind, and then having to drop older support for maintainability).
While a jump to 2.8 for the aforementioned features stabilizing would make sense, with a 2.9 dev branch started to restandardize 'stable' versus 'experimental' changes the jump to 3.0 was entirely unwarranted and just more of the me-tooness that linux seems to be have been heading towards for a good 5 years now. Honestly the only thing holding me to linux at this point is a lack of desire to have to repartition my disks using bsd slices, and a lack of alternative open source OSe that are actually robust enough to boot on all my hardware. (I have reference spec dual processor 440FX systems, the same chipset emulated by qemu, and despite being developed on it, ReactOS, Haiku, Solaris, and a few others never make it out of their first stage bootloaders, on IDE, SCSI, or SATA. Disappointing to say the least.)
Combined with the current Gnome BS (Which anyone who has tried running it on an system dated '04 or earlier will attest to.), there's not a lot of motivation to use linux over alternatives such as Windows, or a Mac/Hackintosh OSX box. The latter two might be slow, but nowadays with a 'desktop' GUI, so is the former. And it seems like the bureaucratic messes running these 'foundations' are so focused on 'features' and 'moving forward', that they've forgotten that one of great strengths of UNIX has always been it's long term compatibility.
For another example of this fubar'ing, Go look at GNU coreutils, and as an example, try running the old Loki linux game demos on it. Gee, don't work too well? They decided to deprecate and remove the - feature of head and tail, leading to breakage of numerous scripts dating back how many decades? Additionally, while I may be wrong, the line number feature they replace it with hadn't even EXISTED back in those days, and so for the sake of (whatever rationale was used) they broke it, knowing full well it would cause lots of peoples software to break in unexpected and possibly silent manners.
Would you trust this sort of mentality with YOUR long term software needs?
(And no, contrary to the belief set forth I am not a shill for MS or Apple. In fact I have a rather low opinion of both. I just happen to also hold many of the unilateral development decisions pushed by 'benevolent dictators' (not just Linus! Go look at glibc for another example!) in utter contempt due to their throwing the baby out with the bathwater, especially given the ever increasing bloat in many of the applications, libraries and kernel (C'mon, seriously, removing backwards compatibility while adding *10* extra features that add a meg of code 9/10s of people will never use while removing the one feature they will?!?!).
I'll just end this rant by asking: 'How many of you have been bit by one of the aforementioned issues, and what is your take on the modern 'MBA' mentality that seems to be creeping it's way into the open source ecosystem?'
What's with all the slashdot users recently, going fucking stupid about version numbering? Who cares what the versions are called: 3.10, 3.11.30 3.A03930. As long as the software works and the users (developers and end users alike) are able to interact with the software, what's the big issue?
Aren't the odd decimal places development branches?
Linus stopped using that method back in 2004. Where have you been?
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
.. the difference between 3.0 and 3.1 is the same as something like 2.6.24 to 2.6.25
Plus after 3.1 there will be "3.1 for Workgroups".
compiling
rewriting history since 2109
FFS this site is getting pathetic with the whining about version numbers. Does it really matter that damned much if it's 2.26.41, or 3.1? Does it make any difference if it's called Firefox 3.8 or 6.0? I tell you, I wish I could get back to a place in my life where my biggest issue was worrying about what the version number on open source projects was.
seven years compiling... oh, you must be using gentoo.
There is a Universal Life Value Check it
I hate to break it to you, but there are many of us here who work professionally in the IT field. We don't have the luxury of being students such as yourself.
When you have to manage 80,000 or more desktops and servers, spread around the world, things like version numbers become very important. It's not so much the numbers themselves, but the expectations and facts that they should convey.
Responsibly using version numbers lets the software developers convey to us, the software administrators and users, important knowledge about the software they have created, and how it relates to earlier and future releases.
A major version number increase should signify massive changes. It should indicate to us that we should disregard any previous knowledge we have, and learn the software product from scratch. It indicates to us that we may need to provide extra assistance to the employees using the software we're tasked with administering. Do you get the idea? Are you beginning to follow what the real world is like? Yeah, it's not like what your computer science professors may have caused you to believe.
When projects start changing major version numbers without good reason, it makes us unsure about such projects. We lose the ability to predict how much of an impact upgrading will have, for instance. Worse, it gets executives asking questions. Even though Linux 3.0 is only slightly different from the last 2.6.39, the major version number jump makes some executives worry unnecessarily. They start to think that what's nothing more than a routine upgrade is more risky than it is.
I have colleagues in IT who have experienced similar problems with the recent Firefox debacle. They have to deal with users who don't want to upgrade from Firefox 4 to Firefox 5, thinking there will be major changes and adjustments, while there's almost no noticeable difference between the two "major" releases!
It hurts the adoption and acceptance of open source software when major projects start playing dumbass games like these with their version numbers. It does indeed create the so-called "FUD" for those who make decisions regarding the use of open source software.
I'm waiting for the 3.11 release, just for shits and giggles.
Ha Ha Ha. Laugh it up Mr. Funnyman. The extra 5% boost I get out of these optimizations is going to blow your god damn socks off.
I consider it a praise to a piece of software if the only thing people can bitch about is its release numbering system.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
... Honestly the only thing holding me to linux at this point is a lack of desire to have to repartition my disks using bsd slices, ...
Don't let that stop you - FreeBSD at least has supported GPT partitioning for some time, so you don't have to mess around with slices if you don't want to.
-Ster
Okay. Cool. We get it. But you don't manage 80k Linux desktops. Get over yourself.
Did a quick scan, one of them is: "Update e-mail address of Jarkko Nikula". Also noted lots of work related to the gma500 driver lately, thanks Alan Cox.
Or perhaps ... just perhaps ... the many of you that work professionally in the IT field got lazy. Really, really lazy. Rather than actually evaluating the merits of a new software release for yourselves (as one would expect an actual professional to do), you lazily shirked your responsibility and expected someone else to do your job for you. For software you very likely didn't pay for, because it was provided to you free of charge, with full source code, access to the entire history of the code repository, development mailing lists, a detailed changelog etc. It doesn't get more transparent than this.
Quit whining. Seriously.
Obviously some are not as experienced as they pretend. Version numbering schemes vary wildly sometimes within the same product or project over time. If the above extremely condescending poster actually had the sort of experience they pretend they have they would know that versioning schemes vary very widely from place to place no matter what we would like to see as a standard.
Nearly every time somebody brings up "the real world" it's a sign they live in a insultated bubble themselves. A cube in a city office building is "the real world"?
Sorry kid, being a year or two out of school does not give you the right to bully the younger kids.
You are so ignorant you must be another student. Not the grand parent but some of us *do* pay for open source software. Out side of academia most people don't have the liberty of seat of your pants forum and IRC support when shit goes seriously wrong. Got a linux kernel bug? Your Redhat support contract may (if its serious enough) get Alan Cox on the phone (did some years ago, I realize he has now left Redhat). Got a table that is being completely mis optimized? Your Maria contract will get you Monty. I could go on and on. Open source software isn't just about free software for kids who think patents are yucky and everything should be free, its about quality software through open community development. Version numbers matter, they matter to executives, they matter to ignorant users who fear upgrades. They matter to those who pay those support bills and vendor contracts that fund open source software development.
-- Don't have 80k Linux desktops, but I do have 35k and growing Linux servers
Question:
Why is it easier to manage them when theres an extra, superfluous, unchanging "6" in between the major and minor version numbers?
I mean, linux was at 2.6 for like 8 years. And the time difference between Linux 1.0.0 and 1.2.0 was a measly 1 year. Linus apparently concluded that hanging onto a number in the middle for several years makes no sense (which it doesnt), and that it makes even less sense to have the major version contain 2 numbers punctuated by a dot.
He has reverted to the exact same system that most other software has used for ages, MAJOR.minor. What is your beef?
Yeah the GP has a point when it comes to what Firefox has been doing but the new versioning for the Linux kernel isn't going down that route. As the parent said, it's just merging the first two numbers and there's no better time to do that then the next "major version" number switch (which would otherwise have been "2.8"). Even better in this case to start it at 3.0. So in reality this actually is a GOOD thing in terms of what the GP was posting about. It's a very clear line both in terms of when this change is taking place (3.x versus 2.6.x) and simplifies things going into the future.
I think what he said was that if he ever went to 3.0, it would mean he had gone insane and rewritten the entire thing in Visual Basic.
Today is red jello day - all workers must eat all of their red jello. Failure to comply will result in five demerits.
This confuses me. Why would executives care about the Linux kernels version number?
Surely you are using Foobar Enterprise Linux 5.x and whatever kernel they are supporting as stable? And you and your executives only need to worry about big disruptive changes when you move to Foobar EL 6.0?
Isn't that the whole point of distros and support contracts?
Would your executives care what the NT Kernel version number is, or would they just look at the actual Windows version being released (2000, XP, Vista, 7 etc)?
Obviously that Windows versioning example is so much more helpful than these "dumbass games" (your words) the open source projects are playing. How about both Windows and SQL Server have had versions numbered 7 and 2000, but they both came out in a very different sequence.
Or when Solaris/SunOS dropped the first digit from its version number. Or how about Java? We have 1.6.0 meaning Java 6 or vice versa in different contexts - JRE vs JDK etc. And 1.2 being known as Java2, then subsequent versions being known as J2SE 1.3, 1.4 (is this still Java2?), then J2SE 5.0 (huh? Is this Java 2 still or Java 5? The internal bits are still 1.5.0_x), then Java SE 6 (no .0 anymore, and inside it is still 1.6.0_x) etc. Yikes - no wonder enterprises stayed away from Java.
Your company must really struggle with those kind of games going on with proprietary or 'enterprise' software version numbers. It makes most open source projects look far more meaningful. I'm not sure how this is an example of the importance version numbers are to an enterprise.
Anyway, the new Linux versioning is correcting the misleading numbering the previous system had. Each new release was in no way a very minor patch on the 2.6.0 release. 2.6.29 bears very little resemblance to 2.6.0, and large chunks of it have been rewritten in that time. So the kernel is moving towards the kind of system you want - not away from it.
I'd suggest that using version numbers for such a thing is an inherently poor way of doing it. I can't believe that someone in 'enterprise' would upgrade to a new Linux kernel without appropriate testing and fallback positions even if that kernel update was a same-version distro update that only contained a few backported security fixes. You don't look at a version number and guess, you assume an update will fuck things up until testing shows otherwise.
I think Mozilla can be faulted for not providing security fixes for relatively recent releases but I don't think their version numbering scheme matters at all.
The kernel version number matters even less. Most people will only come across a kernel version change when updating to a new distro version at which time the quantity of change must require a significant amount of testing even from lazy admins.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Extremely good points...except for the fact that almost no commercial software versions this way. Let's see....
Endnote 8 9 X X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 (all new major versions every year with mostly insignificant changes)
Office 2003 2007 2010 2011 (the 2003 -> 2007 was a pretty big UI bump, but otherwise mostly the same)
Photoshop CS3 CS4 CS5 (some significant new features for sure, but not "learn the software product from scratch")
Those are some examples I can come up with in five minutes, but there are lots more. Let's face it, version numbers are for marketing. If you want to actually know something about the software, you have to read the changelogs and/or install it on a pilot box.
My take? It's been enough for me to completely abandon any further attempts to convert to Linux until they stop fucking with things. I'm sticking with Windows 7 for now because it's proven to me to me a mature, very solid and surprisingly stable platform to run all of my software (both proprietary and open-source, so I get the best of both worlds). I can also count on plenty of older software still working in Windows 7, as well as much of my ingrained habits still working in the new Windows alongside all the new functionality, as opposed to GNOME 3's method of forcing the user to relearn nearly everything about how to use an interface.
Funny you mentioned the Loki installers. They are definitely broken, and I'm not the only one who's had issues with this. Not to mention more modern games like Doom 3 and Quake 4 have issues with Pulseaudio, which results in a noticeable sound lag unless you find out (via Googling) how to use the pasuspender command. Or still popular games like Wolf:ET in which you'll have absolutely NO audio in modern versions of Ubuntu which have removed OSS entierly from their versions of the kernel, unless you either recompile the kernel or find an ALSA wrapper a kind Ubuntu forum member was able to write.
And yet... you don't get these problems with Windows 7. I know I don't enjoy the unnecessary stress/effort of getting things to work the way they should, so that's why I don't bother with Linux anymore. Believe me, I feel happier now too.
Right. And by having the source code, scripts written for hundreds of use cases magically check and correct themselves.
The parent *is* right. It helps if the version numbering consistently indicates whats going on. Being lazy and trying to rely on this has means not consuming too much hours for getting things done. And its sad. If i would know that upgrading a linux machine or connecting new versions to a environment is unpredictable in a way which makes me consume too-many extra hours for nothing (instead of using these to check when the real changes arrive), then i would have to recommend Windows or Solaris.
As for the other things, the changes to GNOME & the kernel. Perhaps it is in large part through the recognition that things as they standard are not right that change is happening. GNOME (for example) needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world and if that causes some churn then so be it. I don't personally like 3.0 but I can see it will get there eventually. And I absolutely sure as hell would not be using a bleeding edge version of GNOME if I was someone like you who wants stability.
The same goes for the kernel. The Linux developers starting with Linus are pragmatists. If something is broken, brain damaged or can be made better they will fix it. If the improvements break something in user land then tough. Again if you want the stability of a kernel use a long lived dist. Red Hat (for example) maintains its own kernel and backports stuff if necessary.
"eeds to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world "
I'm sorry , which "modern world" are you talking about? The one where the GUI gets in the fscking way of what the user actually wants to do?
"If the improvements break something in user land then tough."
No , its not "tough" , its moronic. Backwards compatability is not a nice-to-have , its a pretty damn fundamental to businesses and normal users. If you don't understand this then stay away from software development because you're obviously utterly clueless.
I'm sorry , which "modern world" are you talking about? The one where the GUI gets in the fscking way of what the user actually wants to do?
I'm talking about the compositing desktop world. You know, the world that has allowed Windows and OS X desktops to race ahead and be dramatically more useful (for games, video etc.), responsive (by harnessing the GPU) and attractive (by using compositing technology) than Linux counterparts. I'm talking about GNOME (and KDE) not sitting on their hands and ignoring user interface and usability developments which have happened in the last 10 years elsewhere. Maybe you're happy stuck in the year 2000 like some kind of technological Amish, but there is no reason anybody else should be. And if you are happy to be stuck in the past, quit whining about what dists or GUIs choose to do with themselves now. Go run your ancient Linux and fuck the right off and take your attitude with you.
No , its not "tough" , its moronic. Backwards compatability is not a nice-to-have , its a pretty damn fundamental to businesses and normal users. If you don't understand this then stay away from software development because you're obviously utterly clueless.
You're not calling me utterly clueless, you're calling the Linux kernel developers utterly clueless including Linus Torvalds because this is the way the kernel has been developed for the LAST 20 YEARS. Linus is on record numerous times to explain why there is no ABI, why there are no guarantees of backwards compatibility and so on. So furnish yourself with a clue and go look up his reasoning. Or perhaps you can bleat it's moronic.
No kernel be it Linux, Windows or OS X pledges backwards compatibility because it would be stupid, limiting, and a maintenance headache. "Businesses and normal users" as you put it don't give to give a crap about the inner workings of their kernel and leave it to the dist to sort out. The dist rolls with whatever changes happen in the kernel.
So in summary it appears to be you who are utterly clueless.
or SIGBUS.
Every end has half a stick.