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.
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?
.. 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.
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?
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.
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.