Slashdot Mirror
Linus Torvalds Says Linux Kernel v5.0 'Should Be Meaningless' (betanews.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Following the release of Linux kernel 4.16, Linus Torvalds has said that the next kernel will be version 5.0. Or maybe it won't, because version numbers are meaningless. The announcement -- of sorts -- came in Torvalds' message over the weekend about the first release candidate for version 4.17. He warns that it is not "shaping up to be a particularly big release" and questions whether it even matters what version number is slapped on the final release. He says that "v5.0 will happen some day. And it should be meaningless. You have been warned." That's not to say that Linux kernel v5.0 -- or whatever it ends up being called -- will not be significant. With the removal of old architecture and other bits of tidying up, with v4.17 RC1 there were more lines of code removed than added: something described as "probably a first. Ever. In the history of the universe. Or at least kernel releases."
And release a new major version every six weeks. Also get rid of kernel modules in favour of webextentions, because cloud.
They should make a legacy-free branch so the kernel isn't a 100MB d/l.
WTF Torvalds? Is the kernel somehow behind the rest of the world in terms of software development?
That's like 20% a serious question. Why not go semantic? Or by calendar date?
captcha: cypress, which is apparently just as meaningful a label for a kernel version as 5.0.
0.0.xx releases should be bugfixes. 0.xx releases should be minor feature updates. X.00 releases should be releases that break, or significantly change, the ABI, or that add major functionality.
People put way to much emphasis on labels. While you might expect to break more compatibility on a major number than on a minor, i.e. I'd probably be more wary to install a 5.0 than a 4.22, it's been shown time and time again that it doesn't really matter. Why the urge to have a major number anyway? I'd be calling it 5.0 if something huge changed.
With most software it's mostly a marketing game. We change major numbers so we can charge you again. But with the transition to SaaS, this practice will even change for CSS, why FOSS felt the urge to play the game in the first place is beyond me.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
systemD is pissed and it's not going to take it anymore
Once Linus is no longer maintaining the kernel (or has died), you will miss him more than you miss Steve Jobs.
I still have high hopes that 5.0 brings windows subsystem support
2018.4.17 would be a much more useful over version numbers as consumers would know how old their IoT devices actually are.
Year of linux desktop should be more like 1995.4.17 for gnome, kde, xfce to indicate how far behind they are when comparined to windows and macs.
It is not the kernel that is meaningless, but the concept of version numbers that he says is meaningless.
Everybody avoid the x.0 versions, which are suspected of having bugs. Now even Linus says a x.0 version is meaningless. Poor x.0 versions. Their social isolation must be killing them.
Version numbers are a very broadly understood proxy for communicating risks associated with change to your users.
The fact some have elected to fuck up version numbers for financial gain and politics shows version numbers are in fact not meaningless. As a user I would much prefer Linus et al stop playing games with version numbering. Often people working a project develop a project centric mindset that does not extent to the thinking or value propositions of users.
You think everyone has the time to rummage through change histories to understand the level of risk associated with updating any of a zillion different packages? We don't. There is no benefit to anyone in needlessly trying to make the situation worse.
Linux 5.0 will be evidence that Sun Microsystems marketers have joined the kernel team.
As demonstrated by both Apple (with their OS X, but no OS XI) and Microsoft (with their Windows 10, but no Windows 11), ten is just the highest number an OS can have. Linus is just preparing for the day when Linux, too, reaches its final version number.
If it was meaningless, he wouldn't want to do it.
What he really means is please don't yell at me. I should have the right to do this.
This is how Semantic Versioning ought to work:
So, while Linux kernel version numbers may be meaningless, it would perhaps be better if they were actually meaningful.
The entire damn point of version numbers is, always was, and likely always will be, that they *tell* you useful information about the changes!
Those changes are
* Build number: Unique identification. Optional.
* Bug fix version: No new features. Just bugs fixed. Optional.
* Minor version: Format-compatible feature additions. Files, packets, plugin APIs, etc are all guaranteed to work.
* Major version: Big, feature-breaking changes. Compatibility might be available, but it might require importing, etc.
* Series: This is the same as the number in movie titles. Usually it means a complete rewrite and an entirely new thing. An example would be, when Opera switched the engine. It could have been called "Opera II 1.0". Sometimes confusing, and obviously optional. Usually a new name is chosen.
I don't know when the meme of calling that "semantic" came up, but it is like calling a day that does not have a solar eclipse a "sunlit" day. (Or like saying a(-)theist instead of just "normal", for you Europeans.)
This is how I learned it in the late 80s and 90s, this is how it still is ... in sane land (the tiny leftover enclave).
For the software I work on, it matters a lot: Consider Version number A.B.C.D:
A: Major Version: Breaks backwards comparability from previous version. Don't deploy without careful integration testing.
B: Minor Version: Introduces a new feature. Functional tests are enough.
C: Hotfix: Fixes a bug. Unit tests OK.
D: Build number: Used to allow the automatic deploy scripts to fetch the right version out of the CI. Not strictly needed.
See http://semver.org.
For our software, it's essential. It is what signals to my colleagues how closely they need to monitor a version I am working on... or when they will be able to deploy a feature that depends on a feature in my software... and so on.
But for a Kernel, which is doing a rolling release, which is dropping support for something or other every other week, this makes no sense. You have to pick the label that makes sense for you.
At least, they are not supposed to be. Version numbering, particularly decimal-delimited versioning, was originally intended to communicate concisely the level of risk involved with the change from the prior version, with each field, progressing left to right, representing less risk.
For example:
2.4.12 -> 2.4.13 ~= Little risk involving a low degree of time and expense managing integration failures and customer blowback. Often these changes can be rolled out in production with little or even no integration testing beforehand
2.4.x -> 2.5.x ~= Moderate risk involving a significant degree of time and expense, customers should plan on offline integration testing on a snapshot before deployment
2.x.x -> 3.x.x =~ Major risk involving significant changes in process or procedure, significant changes in data handling. May require significant software retooling by the customer, and certainly requires significant integration testing, software development, or capital outlay before deployment.
Today, this helpful, informative approach has morphed into a marketing tool... sad!
Considering how poor QA and regression testing Linux kernel gets even x.y.z is meaningless unless we are talking about the kernels maintained by Red Hat and Google.
When you think of Linux desktop, you tend to think of end users installing it on older hardware to eek out a few more months or years of use. Sort of disappointed to read some older hardware won't be supported anymore. Given that Linux desktop isn't exactly setting the world on fire in users. I wonder why you would do this to users of older hardware? I get Linux needs to start streamlining and losing some bulk because its losing the efficiency battle with Windows as well as Chrome OS and Mac OS.
Isn't the whole world moving away from point releases? Perhaps the Linux kernel still needs development and stable tracks, but the whole idea of a "major release" followed by a bunch of "point releases" is an artifact of the days when software came in a box with a CD in it, or (for us old greybeards) on a magnetic tape. Rolling releases with whole numbers (like 50123 rather than 5.0.123) are where it's all going now.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
That's fine, but the version numbers should mean *something* I think bumping the major when the ABI breaks would be helpful.
Otherwise bump the version yearly, or when some arbitrary goal is met, or something.
It has become a jack of all trades. Spaghetti code's structural mother.
It should be cut into modules and aspects which actually can progress like that.
This would also make custom kernels easier.
But of course it would require proper stable APIs. The one thing Linux never managed to have, and where it was misdesigned from the very start according to Linus, from what I've been told.
Of course, while microkernels are apparently the obvious better choice, as they are everyone's theoretical wet dream, everyone who tried them realized that the waste due to the tight intetfaces between modues is too big, and that they hence will always be too inefficient.
Linux itself is quite meaningless. Tacking on a version number doesn't change much.
Give me a proper Windows system any day.
The problem there is that a Windows system that is secure and stable is difficult to find. Soon , the windows OS itself will be a subscription product, locking you in to a new version of the walled garden.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
You are so increadibly dumb and incompetent it literally hurts me.
In particular, a legitimate "5.0" release really needs to be a "GT" version, and should include sport suspension, an aero package, 21-inch wheels, and Brembo brakes.
Windows is great for games.
macOS is great for desktops.
Linux is great for servers.
#DeleteFacebook
Version numbers are pretty meaningless, but it does mean you can generate some news. Write up a big press release about all the changes since version 4.0, stick in some stats about how many computers are running linux and you might get into the mainstream press.
macOS is great for desktops.
For those who can afford it I guess it's OK, but I can (and do) build a system much more powerful and install Linux on it for the price of a Mac desktop. Probably closer to half the price of a Mac, but I haven't priced one lately.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
The first release on or after September 17th should be 26.0 this year and increasing every year thereafter. So the first 2019 release on or after September 17th would be version 27.0.
Linus should do that, just because he's Linus. No reason necessary. He's the decider. If he says it, everyone will line up behind to to agree. Anyone who disagrees he will call a perkeleen vittupää. Because he can.
Five dot oh: complete with systemd.
The red pill: Back to the way it once was. Meaning less trouble.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Keep them going in an ever increasing direction, and any numbering scheme will be fine. Just don't go with the Asinine Asshole method Ubuntu's doing (and Android). Numbers are easy to remember and keep in order, artsy-fartsy naming conventions are harder to keep up with.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
And ... Linux for servers was a solved problem a decade ago.
I guess this is the real reason why incrementing the Linux version number is irrelevant.
No sig today...
Once Linus is no longer maintaining the kernel (or has died), you will miss him more than you miss Steve Jobs.
Why? Hadn't Linus dropped off the top contributor list long ago? We are already well past the point where Linux development is done, or guided, by hobbyists; development is now dominated, and guided, by corporations.
Linus is more of an administrator in the development process, approving changes more than making changes. The corporations could easily supply someone for that role too.
Linus would be missed as a spokesperson, a figurehead, an occasional source of humor (ex. comments when irritated), but for day-to-day work he is completely replaceable. And being completely replaceable means he did his job correctly and his project will be healthy without him.
Version numbers are coherent. You instantly know where in the chain of evolution you are.
I despise projects that use names instead... "marshmellow finger", "Toxic lake"... what does that even mean? That is not information I want to have to store in my brain.
Version 5.0. I know exactly what that means and I am grateful for the simplicity.
macOS is great for desktops.
For those who can afford it I guess it's OK
I don't see what's so special about it. As soon as you step outside of web/email/basic use then there's suddenly a great big hole compared to windows. Even basic stuff like text editors and FTP programs are completely lacking (show me the Mac equivalents of Notepad++ or WinSCP...)
My guess is that Macbooks mostly sell because they look pretty compared to the $500 Windows laptops you see in most stores.
My answer to that is to try spending $1500 on a windows laptop. You might find something equally pretty but a whole lot better built and much more useful.
No sig today...
Now that there are really long term support versions, breaking compatibility in a major version is really not that big of a deal. Fix the memory manager so mmaped files can be unloaded on a low memory condition and generate a page fault as needed. Make the various compressed memory and file subsystems compatible with each other when using the same compression format (rather than de+re-compressing on each copy) simplify the video/gpu systems. Currently, if you run code deduplication software you will fill the disk. Simple things like struct definitions and syscall numbers vary unnecessarily across architectures. Each individual chunk of code is top notch, but overall it is shit.
Of course, while microkernels are apparently the obvious better choice, as they are everyone's theoretical wet dream, everyone who tried them realized that the waste due to the tight intetfaces between modues is too big, and that they hence will always be too inefficient.
With computer power so far beyond user demands, with so many layers in the software stack and/or application implemented with convenience rather than performance in mind, or implementation speed rather than execution speed if you prefer, the reduced performance of the light interfaces is rather insignificant overall. Greater reliability and security would outweigh such minor overall performance costs.
Congratulations, AC. Your logical attitude will win you a one-way trip to the re-education camps. I'm sure I'll see you there. But I don't see what any of this has to do with Linux.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
If they're odd numbered, then they are beta.
My windows laptop turned off has never crashed. Actually, I think it has blue screened a few time in standby. Lol.
Home Brew negro! Do you even lift
Congratulations, AC. Your logical attitude will win you a one-way trip to the re-education camps. I'm sure I'll see you there. But I don't see what any of this has to do with Linux.
Same AC here. Thanks. The tie-in is that GPP mentioned the diminishing enclave of sane-land, and the whole topic was on the naming of things. Why debate the merits of one naming/versioning scheme over another? Why, because there is power in the use of language. Expectations and even norms come from using one term or number and not another. I mentioned George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) because he really understood this. It's what 1984's Newspeak was all about.
It reminded me of all the other silly controversies we see all the time, mostly because people cannot act like adults. The whole LGBT thing is a prime example. It's filled with frothing-at-the-mouth types who think anyone disagreeing with them is pure evil. So there is one orthodoxy and many heresies. It's like we learned nothing from the Dark Ages. At least with kernel version numbering, the posts are a lot more reasonable. The posters are acknowledging the utility of having reasons for their stances. That much is refreshing.
I hate them too. So so much. Changing normal to cis because that are a abnormal walking freakshow. Iâ(TM)ve never met a lesbian that didnâ(TM)t hate men, or themselves. A lesbian trying so hard and failing to mimic men, of who they hate so much. And a lesbian that did not to extreme violence on each other. They are dishonest and liars to their core being. And are extremely selfish to the point of having children, just so they can raise them corrupted to hate society and men and hate most of all the women âbreedersâ(TM).
Almost all lesbians could disappear and would not be missed and would not have any impact on the world.
Doubtful. Saint Steve’s rotting cock is still the most amazing thing to shove in your ass. Even an iPhone X doesn’t feel as good when sliding up your poop shoot.
He's right, when we went from 0.98/1.0 to 2.0 kernel, there were entire suits of new hardware supported, kernel modules, many new features, to say nothing of breaking existing functionality for many things.
20 years later and the major releases are functionally changing things only kernel programmers would care about.
Not to diminish those contributions, but by this point it's more slow roll evolution and iteration.
https://www.barebones.com/prod...
#DeleteFacebook
Linux itself is quite meaningless. Tacking on a version number doesn't change much.
Give me a proper Windows system any day.
I see someone is familiar with APK's work
What is he at now, version Eleventy9^42!!!OMGWFTBBQ
no, windows laptops are flimsy, mac laptops are robust and have incredible battery life. don't have to fart around with driver downloading either.
windows and its hardware are an inferior world, I'm in both for laptops as my mac book pro is supplied by employer but at home my family and I have wintel laptops
Even basic stuff like text editors and FTP programs are completely lacking (show me the Mac equivalents of Notepad++ or WinSCP...)
Depending on what you mean by "equivalent"... Equally functional, or looks/feels the same?
In either case, a lazy search in Google gives plenty of results.
Atom or Sublime Text are popular text editors. Most developers I work with use one or the other. Notepadd++ is a useful program but I use it more for viewing and searching XML and JSON files, or things like firewall config files.
FileZilla is cross platform and has been around for many years.
Or you can always use vim or emacs and sftp in the terminal. Those are fast and reliable and are built in.
/* No Comment */
Linux X or as it will eventually be called, Linu(x^2)
"With the removal of old architecture and other bits of tidying up, with v4.17 RC1 there were more lines of code removed than added: something described as 'probably a first'."
Does the Linux Foundation realize that a big feature of Linux is to be able to run on legacy hardware? Nothing in the kernel announcement explains that "obsolete" means "non-existent". If "obsolete" means "our bean counters don't care about your hardware any more", then the Linux Foundation runs the risk of forking Linux. Does systemd ring a bell?
It depends ... my MacBook Air 1st gen from 7 years ago still works great albeit having a rather tiny 256GB SSD drive.
It drop it so many times I lost count until the corners are bent (drop from a high standing table) .... any yet it still works without a glitch.... only that Batt life is now half of what it used to be.
Iâ(TM)ve gone through 3 windows laptops in that same timeframe. 2 Lenovos Thinkpads and Sony.
But I heard the latest MacBooks are not as good as the ones from before which would really suck :(
Dell XPS 13/15 want to have a word with you. Compare apples to apples (pun intended) and not MacBook Pros to cheap Windows laptops.
Version 5 tells Enterprise users to hold off for a while.
Version 5 tells Experimenters to salivate.
Maybe Linus wants some breathing room in the near future.
we have a choice at work between those or mac books so we see the lifetime of hundreds. those Dell have MUCH more reliability problems
Once Linus is no longer maintaining the kernel (or has died), you will miss him more than you miss Steve Jobs.
Steve Jobs would be alive today if only his doctors could have opened him up to fix him!
How would your mother feel if she knew you'd posted this?
Deleting code is my favourite software development activity, ever. Especially when all the tests are still green afterward.
You know what the worst thing about shitheads like you who pollute every thread is?
You're *boring*, *boring*, *boring*, same shit day after day, don't you ever get *bored* with posting it?
No, you think you're being witty and clever *even though the same shit gets posted a million times*.
Sad.
We go for three levels deep whilst reporting one of Linus' burps.
Requiem for the American Dream
I like semantic versioning. It makes sense. I want it. It should be used for all software products.
Rapidly incrementing integers (e.g. Chrome, Firefox) quickly lose all meaning. Humans need meaning.
In short, I think you are wrong. Prove me wrong if you can.
Versioning is absolutely necessary and meaningful.
But version magnitude (i.e. 5.0 vs. 4.0) is meaningless to Mr. Torvalds.
He needs to get on the Oracle bandwagon and just do Linux 18.2 (as in 2018, second release) already. Then the perceived meaning of the first component (i.e. "5" of "5.0") is eradicated ("18" in "2018" just means the year, not that it's hugely better than 4.0).
What the fuck! What is it with completely misleading, sensational "headlines". I've seen this troped all over the place. These so-called "journalist" should be taken out and have a bullet put in their brain pan. The world would be a better place if they were removed from it.
Just start versioning it like browsers then.
She's be shocked he didn't know the difference between "shoot" and "chute".
Kernels generally should never have breaking changes in userland. Internally, kernels are already making breaking changes. Most "breaking" changes around kernel changes are not caused by the kernel, but by the frameworks an libraries that make use of new features in the new kernel.
The present android operating system is derived from Linux.
> It's filled with frothing-at-the-mouth types who think anyone disagreeing with them is pure evil.
What you're describing is not coming from LGBT its coming from so-called liberalism, It just so happens that many (if not most) LGBTs are also liberals.