Linux Kernel 3.0? 369
An anonymous reader writes "A discussion on the Linux kernel mailing list between Linux creator Linus Torvalds, Linux guru Ingo Molnar, and a few others debated the name of the upcoming stable kernel release. The choices: 2.6 or 3.0. Evidently there's been enough improvements, most notably the VM, that they're leaning towards calling it 3.0..."
Consumer Marketing (Score:4, Funny)
My vote would be to make it Linux 10.0 to make it compatible with the SuSe & mandrake number systems.
And then.... (Score:5, Funny)
Why not use Microsoft's versioning system? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And then.... (Score:5, Funny)
As Shakespeare said (more or less) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And then.... (Score:5, Funny)
Apple =
Linux =
Re:Hm (Score:5, Funny)
why 3.0? (Score:1, Funny)
excuse me, but... (Score:1, Funny)
gnu/Linux 95
gnu/Linux 98
gnu/LiNTux
gnu/Linux 2000
gnu/LinuXP
and gnu/Li.NET
Re:Why not use Microsoft's versioning system? (Score:0, Funny)
1. Why be a naive moron
2. Why be a fucking moron
3. Why be a niave fucking moron
1: I was raised in a sheltered enviroment, and have always been naive for it. I disagree with the accusation of being a moron, as I clearly have a mental age of 47 according to IQ tests.
2: While I still disagree with your assesment of mental age, I would say that it is better to be in the state of having sex than it to not be.
3: Because as I noted above I was raised to be naive, I much enjoy fucking, and I am clearly not a moron.
I have answered the question, therefore your statment is false. You do not exist, thank you and good bye.
Definitions --
moron Pronunciation Key (môrn, mr-)
A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
fuck Pronunciation Key (fk) Vulgar Slang
v. fucked, fucking, fucks
v. tr.
To have sexual intercourse with.
Re:I can see it now (Score:3, Funny)
2005-03-28: Debian 3.1 is released!
It includes the advanced Linux 2.4.8-kernel, KDE 2.2.1 and
four year old versions of another 20000 or so packages.
Get it here!
It should be 3.0: here's why (Score:5, Funny)
This is the biggest problem with Linux (Score:5, Funny)
I think we should speed up development and annoint a dedicated "version czar" who will make sure that the Linux kernels stay ahead of Windows. Hard as it may be, I'm willing to ``do my share'' and volunteer for this position. My first step would be to shift the decimal point 3 places to the right. This decimal has been hogging the #2 spot in the release number for too long; it is time it got relegated to the #5 spot, where it rightfully belongs.
Nice troll (Score:1, Funny)
[1] The software that provides math emulation, graphical buffers, virtualized serialization and any other odds and ends that the chip microware doesn't provide by itself,
eLinux (Score:1, Funny)
exp(1)
Linux IV (Score:4, Funny)
Linux IV, becuase Free software needs free press, too.
Re:And then.... (Score:3, Funny)
Just too bad we have to wait 93 years to get the next one...
Re:I can see it now (Score:3, Funny)
What Software Version Numbers Really Mean (Score:2, Funny)
Once you start playing with software you quickly become aware that each software package has a revision code attached to it. It is obvious that this revision code gives the sequence of changes to the product, but in reality there's substantially more information available through the rev-code than that. This article provides a guide for interpreting the meaning of the revision codes and what they actually signify.
1.0: Also known as "one point uh-oh", or "barely out of beta". We had to release because the lab guys had reached a point of exhaustion and the marketing guys were in a cold sweat of terror. We're praying that you'll find it more functional than, say, a computer virus and that its operation has some resemblance to that specified in the marketing copy.
1.1: We fixed all the killer bugs
1.2: Uh, we introduced a few new bugs fixing the killer bugs and so we had to fix them, too.
2.0: We did the product we really wanted to do to begin with. Mind you, it's really not what the customer needs yet, but we're working on it.
2.1: Well, not surprisingly, we broke some things in making major changes so we had to fix them. But we did a really good job of testing this time, so we don't think we introduced any new bugs while we were fixing these bugs.
2.2: Uh, sorry, one slipped through. One lousy typo error and you won't believe how much trouble it caused!
2.3: Some jerk found a deep-seated bug that's been there since 1.0 and wouldn't stop nagging until we fixed it!!
3.0: Hey, we finally think we've got it right! Most of the customers are really happy with this.
3.1: Of course, we did break a few little things.
4.0: More features. It's doubled in size now, by the way, and you'll need to get more memory and a faster processor
4.1: Just one or two bugs this time... Honest!
5.0: We really need to go on to a new product, but we have an installed base out there to protect. We're cutting the staffing after this.
6.0: We had to fix a few things we broke in 5.0. Not very many, but it's been so long since we looked at this thing we might as well call it a major upgrade. Oh, yeah, we added a few flashy cosmetic features so we could justify the major upgrade number.
6.1: Since I'm leaving the company and I'm the last guy left in the lab who works on the product, I wanted to make sure that all the changes I've made are incorporated before I go. I added some cute demos, too, since I was getting pretty bored back here in my dark little corner (I kept complaining about the lighting but they wouldn't do anything). They're talking about obsolescence planning but they'll try to keep selling it for as long as there's a buck or two to be made. I'm leaving the bits in as good a shape as I can in case somebody has to tweak them, but it'll be sheer luck if no one loses them.
______________
Re:Consumer marketing is irrelevant to the kernel (Score:1, Funny)
Re:And then.... (Score:3, Funny)
You probably don't know it, but 'LiNTux' comes in Finnish language pretty close to 'Birdix' ('lintu' means 'bird' in finnish). Somewhat Tuxish..
Re:Take a lesson from emacs here (Score:5, Funny)
> say. Their strict adherance to not incrementing the major has
> accomplished the opposite of what they wanted.
No, no, you don't understand. Current versions are still numbered
0.21.n.n because the first major release hasn't been reached yet.
The version number won't be incremented to 1.0 until Emacs has all
the fundamentally vital features it needs to be credibly called a
text editor. Besides better threading (planned for 0.22 or 0.23),
Emacs still needs thorough support for multiple human languages
and OS platforms, a more extensive help system, and complete text
manipulation functionality before a solid 1.0 release can be made.
Better (reentrant) scriptability and networking support would also
be very nice to have for the 1.0 release. Sure, the developers
and early adopters don't bother to say the "0." part, but we all
know it's there. As far as end users are concerned, Emacs really
doesn't even exist yet, in fully-functional released form. Those
of us who have started using it early only do so for testing, or
because there are no alternatives. (If anyone is aware of any
fully-functional text editing application, whether open or closed,
commercial or non-commercial, I would like to know about it, but I
have looked high and low and am under the impression that there is
none available for any platform, at any price. Emacs 0.21, despite
its obvious incompleteness, is the closest thing there is that I
have been able to find.)
See, people may think Mozilla.org invented the fully-functional
1.0 release, but Emacs has had that philosophy all along. In
spades. So, now you know
Re:And then.... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:And then.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:uhhh... (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft skipped 91 major version numbers from 3.11 to 95...and it *still* wasn't much of an upgrade.
Linux XP (Score:3, Funny)