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."

Comments

It should

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It should

[aardvarkjoe]

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.

That's one way to do version numbers. That's how the Linux kernel used to do things. And Linus found that it didn't work very well for the kernel, so he changed to a different approach.

Re:It should

[jwhyche]

Well then he should just drop the numbering plan all together. We should name kernel releases after porn stars. Cindy, Tammy, Candy....

What's in a number, what's in a name?

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:What's in a number, what's in a name?

[the_saint1138]

Many version numbers in software are meaningful.

If anyone depends on your software, then using major/minor/patch version numbers to distinguish which changes are backwards incompatible, feature additions, and bug fixes is very helpful to those downstream. See https://semver.org/

Re:I can haz frist post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Once Linus is no longer maintaining the kernel (or has died), you will miss him more than you miss Steve Jobs.

Look, we all know where this is going

[johannesg]

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.

Re:Look, we all know where this is going

[jwhyche]

21 if he is in the shower.....

semantic versioning

[ooloorie]

This is how Semantic Versioning ought to work:

Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:

MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner, and
PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes.
Additional labels for pre-release and build metadata are available as extensions to the MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format.

So, while Linux kernel version numbers may be meaningless, it would perhaps be better if they were actually meaningful.

Re:semantic versioning

[amorsen]

It's the kernel. You can't do incompatible API changes. Does that mean Linux should be on version 1.387.4?

Re:semantic versioning

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux kernel historically has had no API/ABI stability at all and Linus actively opposes any such concept. For a good reason too, we wouln't want to end up like Windows with their backwards compatibility baggage. On the other hand that means it's really hard to support hardware in any other way than having it in the kernel itself - just ask nVidia how their closed driver efforts are going when a new kernel/x.org versions arrive.

Re:semantic versioning

[amorsen]

This is completely wrong. The Linux kernel API/ABI is utterly stable. You can install one of the first distributions, switch the kernel to 4.x, and things will work just fine.

You may have to enable a.out support though.

Moving away from point releases

[IGnatius T Foobar]

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.

Re:He's Right

[hduff]

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.

Re:He's Right

[DontBeAMoran]

Windows is great for games.
macOS is great for desktops.
Linux is great for servers.

Re:He's Right

[Joce640k]

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.

Major versions should break broken APIs

[technosaurus]

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.

Re:Linus already not that "active" ...

[dabadab]

Hadn't Linus dropped off the top contributor list long ago?

Yes. And Steve Jobs was never the Employee of the Month at the Foxconn factory where the iPhones are actually made. But that doesn't matter.
It's still Linus who ultimately decides what is and what is not accepted into the kernel (either directly or by delegating it to people he personally trusts) and makes the major decision regarding where the kernel is headed and that's the thing that actually matters not writing a few hundred lines of code to support a new wi-fi chip.