Linus Torvalds Says Linux 4.0 Could Be Out In Three Years

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linus Torvalds Says Linux 4.0 Could Be Out In Three Years

Posted by timothy on Thursday August 30, 2012 @12:46AM from the next-step-only-got-to-3.3 dept.

darthcamaro writes "The wait between Linux 2.x and 3.x was a long one, but the wait to Linux 4? Well, that will only be a matter of three years, according to Linus Torvalds. '"It's just mentally much easier for people to remember the small number," Torvalds said during the LinuxCon conference in San Diego [Wednesday]. "We'll do 4.0 in three years maybe when the sub numbers have grown in the 20's and our feeble brains can't handle it."'"

32 of 174 comments (clear)

Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 00:49 · Score: 5, Funny

Firefox will be up to 1,376,265.1 by then.
1. Re:Firefox by ThePhilips · 2012-08-30 01:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is an factually incorrect statement.
  3 years, at 52 weeks per year, is 156 weeks. With a version bump every 6 weeks, in 156 weeks, FireFox would reach version: current version + 156/6 = 15 + 26 = FireFox 41.
  What I'm trying to say here: one doesn't even have to exaggerate...
  
  --
  All hope abandon ye who enter here.
2. Re:Firefox by ciderbrew · 2012-08-30 01:31 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Nah. Just reset the numbers and call all the older stuff "Silver Age". Simple..
3. Re:Firefox by Filip22012005 · 2012-08-30 02:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Your mistake is linear extrapolation. Firefox' versioning seems to be exponential.
  
  --
  When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
4. Re:Firefox by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-08-30 02:16 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  3 years, at 52 weeks per year, is 156 weeks.
  o.O Mother of god... are you a wizard? How did you do that?
5. Re:Firefox by magpie · 2012-08-30 02:18 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Meanwhile debian will be on 6.0.6 (though they might still be on 6.0.5).
6. Re:Firefox by Robert+Zenz · 2012-08-30 02:52 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm pretty sure someone at Mozilla/Google is planning to put the Browser into the Web as Web 2.0 application.
7. Re:Firefox by Zibodiz · 2012-08-30 03:29 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  chrome will be 1,376,270.0.1246.0-1349675
  But it'll still be in beta.
8. Re:Firefox by anethema · 2012-08-30 03:39 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  http://buttcoin.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/disco-stu.jpg
  
  --
  
  It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
9. Re:Firefox by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-08-30 06:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Watch this, then come back.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
10. Re:Firefox by 680x0 · 2012-08-31 08:53 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm installing KDE version 1066 tonight. It comes with William the Konqueror.
Operating Systems research is dead by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-08-30 00:55 · Score: 3, Funny

These days it's all about dumb terminals and VAXclusters.
1. Re:Operating Systems research is dead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 01:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  No it isn't.
  Just a couple of years ago I saw an interesting talk about an experimental OS for multicore where the kernel is distributed over the different cores.
  Just because the commercial sector isn't doing shit, doesn't mean research isn't happening.
2. Re:Operating Systems research is dead by Teresita · 2012-08-30 01:11 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  When the Linux kernel reaches version 4.0 it will be the Year of the Linux Desktop. Real Soon Now.
So he's saying... by SpectreBlofeld · 2012-08-30 00:56 · Score: 4, Funny

...that age is just a number?
Alternatively: "Life begins at 4.0".
Just numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 00:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Judging from 3.0 which didn't have any breakthrough features included, this is just silly numbers talk.
1. Re:Just numbers by gl4ss · 2012-08-30 01:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Judging from 3.0 which didn't have any breakthrough features included, this is just silly numbers talk.
  that's exactly what he said, it's just a number.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Does it matter? by CadentOrange · 2012-08-30 00:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

They're merely version numbers, after all.
Small number? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 00:58 · Score: 3, Funny

It's just mentally much easier for people to remember the small number,"

How about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001?
.
Captcha: impudent - is Slashdot trying to tell me something?
Eh... by O('_')O_Bush · 2012-08-30 00:59 · Score: 3

Most Linus users don't know their kernel version anyways. They just know their distro, and maybe distro version, and never care to look at what is under the hood.

Usability be damned, I would prefer they encode the version number in I's,N's, and U's. Running kernel version Liiinnnnnnuuux.

--
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
1. Re:Eh... by Hatta · 2012-08-30 01:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  There are only two versions of Arch. Up to date and out of date.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
2. Re:Eh... by Nimey · 2012-08-30 03:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  LILO had error messages? If you call getting to LIL a message, I suppose.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
3.20's? by Tubal-Cain · 2012-08-30 01:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

We'll do 4.0 in three years maybe when the sub numbers have grown in the 20's and our feeble brains can't handle it.
If your numbers are going to be arbitrary, why not roll them over at 3.9?
Re:Also by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-30 01:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Closing tags do not take attributes
/wooooooosh
Re:Also by serviscope_minor · 2012-08-30 01:10 · Score: 4, Funny

Score: +5 amusingly pedantic.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Even Torvalds now? by Urza9814 · 2012-08-30 01:24 · Score: 3, Funny

When will this quick versioning madness end?!!?
1. Re:Even Torvalds now? by Hieronymus+Howard · 2012-08-30 01:49 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Exactly. Why don't they just copy Apple's current system and call it 'The New Linux Kernel'?
2. Re:Even Torvalds now? by GeekWithAKnife · 2012-08-30 02:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Exactly. Why don't they just copy Apple's current system and call it 'The New Linux Kernel'?
  Rest assured, if you call it iLinux you will be sued. Especially if this is software run inside a rectangular device. P.S. You might be safe for the fact it may not run on a given processor though.
  
  --
  A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Version nonsense by GeekWithAKnife · 2012-08-30 01:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does this make any sense really? We thought there will be a move from 2.6 to 2.8, all-of-a-sudden we had version 3.0 (Where are my .4 worth of upgrades BTW?) How much time did it take to move from 2.6 to 3.0? Considering the current, latest kernel is 3.5, it could be decided tomorrow that the next update will warrant a version 4.0. What does this version business equate to? how can you measure how much better it is based on this "version"? Would it not make more sense to date stamp the release? At least that way you'd know that X development time was put in between 3.5.1 & 3.5.2. I think we need a better system than "version".

--
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Re:Rasta Kernel by dkleinsc · 2012-08-30 03:11 · Score: 3, Funny

But something tells me getting from 4.20 to 4.21 will take a really long time, man.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Really mods? by betterunixthanunix · 2012-08-30 03:35 · Score: 4, Funny

"Insightful?" Not "Funny?"

--
Palm trees and 8
Crisis of Infinite Firefoxes? by tnk1 · 2012-08-30 04:23 · Score: 4, Funny

Warning: This extension is only supported by the latest versions of Firefox-616.