Revamped Linux Kernel Numbering Concluded 272
kernel_dan writes "Following on the heels of a prior discussion about a kernel numbering scheme, KernelTrap has the conclusion. From summary: "Linus Torvalds decided against trying to add meaning to the odd/even least significant number. Instead, the new plan is to go from the current 2.6.x numbering to a finer-grained 2.6.x.y. Linus will continue to maintain only the 2.6.x releases, and the -rc releases in between. Others will add trivial patches to create the 2.6.x.y releases. Linus cautions that the task of maintaining a 2.6.x.y tree is not going to be enjoyable.'" Torvalds suggested specific guidelines to alleviate burn-out of the .y maintainer and Greg KH volunteered to begin maintainership."
Just one question: (Score:5, Funny)
The *.x only kernels are stable.
Won't there be a 28 day cycle for
stability on the *.x only kernel?
Yes. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yes. (Score:2, Funny)
This may soon be legal in Canada.
BSD (Score:4, Funny)
Re:BSD (Score:2)
Someone told me that Americans think bud comes in a can... is that true?
Re:Ummm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ummm (Score:2)
Burnout (Score:4, Funny)
How *DO* you write a Linux device driver in C#?
Re:Burnout (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, Mono can probably compile to machine code, just like anything else.
Re:Burnout (Score:2)
Java OS (Score:2, Interesting)
Their goal is to write a complete operating system in Java.
Re:Burnout (Score:2)
Gregkh already made one point release (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gre
It includes tiny fixes such as a Dell laptop keyboard fix and a raid6 compilation fix for ppc.
Numbering... eek. (Score:5, Insightful)
2.6.x...
2.6.x.y...
2.6.x.y.z...
Kind of a Zeno's Paradox, isn't it?
Re:Numbering... eek. (Score:5, Funny)
Confused? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's an idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
Honestly, I don't understand the insistence on keeping everything at 2.x, 2.x.y, etc. If someone can explain the rationale to me, I'd be quite interested.
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the way software SHOULD be versioned. It's the way Apple is versioning now, and it's the way Microsoft versions it's core systems (Windows XP SP2 = NT 5.1.2600).
Personally, I'd like for the odd-minor devel releases to go away and find some better way of versioning those, but everything else to-date has been sensible and sane, and I've been compiling my own kernels since the 2.1 series.
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Funny. Someone HAS to have planned that one.
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:2)
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:2)
stupid html
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:2)
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I think many projects (especially open-source) are getting out of hand with the version numbers. Just look at some of the version information on some Debian packages.
I mean, you have stuff like version "testing-4.3.0.dfsg.1-12.0.1". Does no one else see that as insane? I know each part has a purpose, but it seems more like improper project management. Is this possibly caused by a lack of proper scheduling? Things take too long and people start branching off into separate sub-versions.
It's the same thing with the kernel. I see no reason for official kernels to have so many frickin sub-versions. KISS, please. I think you reach a certain point and then the versions have lost all meaning. End-users can't keep track of all this stuff. Please implement better project management practices and just do actual releases with a simple versioning scheme.
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:2)
Linus has his preference. As long as I don't have to start maintaining the kernel, this won't affect me at all. I will sort of miss the old even/odd dichotomy though
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
You do your best, you release it as 1.0, and then you start all over again to fix bugs and work towards the next full release. Making the numbers smaller doesn't change the quality of your software, it just helps a programmer live with the perceived embarrassment of not writing the perfect piece of code. In the final analysis, the numbers are all arbitrary; any sense of pride in your work or shame about your mistakes is a personal issue. Take Apple as an example. You could strip the 10 off of 10.3.8 and say that they are on version 3.8 of OS X. That means that version 4.0 is just around the corner, and that makes their turn-around cycle sound that much more impressive. To those who protest that a full point release demands unbelievable innovation and "drastic code re-writes," I have to ask, "Where is that written?" In the final analysis, versioning is all in your head.
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:3, Informative)
Solaris 10 is in fact Solaris 2.10, and the kernel of Solaris 2.10 is the SunOS 5.10.
Solaris was released as "2", because it was the first software distribution from SUN Microsystems that was SVR4 compliant, thus making a difference to the previous SunOS releases, which were based on BSD. Solaris 2 got a rewrite of the old SunOS kernel, which was at 4.3.1 before Solaris. So the kernel was SunOS 5.0. With every new Solaris Software Release there w
What was wrong with the old way? (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't been following the kernel mailing list, but as a regular linux user from way back, I'm not clear on why the old way was dropped. This way seems a lot more confusing to me.
Re:What was wrong with the old way? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What was wrong with the old way? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What was wrong with the old way? (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that kernel developers are still adding new features suggest that it is still a development kernel. Stable kernels are for bug fixes. If they need new features to fix existing bugs, that's when they should bump up the stable version number.
However, I think version number is already obsolete for Linux kernels. We should be able to manage patchsets as if they're software packages, complete with dependency and conflict information that are automatically computed. When you want a "patch" to be included in your kernel, it looks for patches it depends on, checks to see whether it results in a conflict, and apply the patches. Periodically, "metapatches" are updated to depend on the most recent patches along some feature. More intricacies need to be worked out.
Assuming (0) that there is a demand for such a patch manager---I think the problem with developing it is that (1) it's difficult to develop a realistic test project from ground up using the patch manager, so the patch system can show that its design is useful, and (2) if we use an existing large software project (such as the Linux kernel), programmers for the patch manager would spend too much time following the development for that other project, rather than have useful work done; they might not want to do it. In general, we want to test the patch manager on a big project, but we also risk wasting too much time on the test project.
It would be best if the developers of a large project (can also think about the Linux kernel) will take the initiative into developing a patch manager, since they have a demand for it (or can be convinced to have a demand), already have a realistic software product, and are willing to follow the development of their own project.
I'm saying that there is a seed for an innovative patch management and revision control system from maintaining a Linux kernel. They should do something about it.
Re:What was wrong with the old way? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to be what the vendors want. RedHat 2.4 kernels have so much 2.6 stuff back-ported they're barely 2.4 anymore.
Re:What was wrong with the old way? (Score:4, Insightful)
As near as I can tell from reading recent comments on this particular decision, the single biggest reason they don't want to do 2.7 is because not enough people will test it. Only by calling it 'stable' can they get enough testers. Of course, the fact that it will now never really BE stable, seems to have been lost on them.
This is better than what they have been doing, but only slightly. What Linus seems to really want is for everyone in the whole world to be using the very most recent kernel. He wants, in essence, everyone in the world to be beta testers. By putting out new code and calling it 'stable', he gets hundreds of thousands of testers, and is able to shake out bugs much faster.
Apparently, the possibility that it might be banks and hospitals that are discovering these bugs didn't occur to them. Discovering a bug is an EXTREMELY PAINFUL PROCESS for someone who isn't expecting one. So instead of doing the nasty hard work of maintaining separate stable and development branches, they push that pain onto everyone else in the world.
Personally, I want software that works more than I want the latest whizbang feature. That's why I got onto Linux in the first place, a decade ago... I was frustrated with Windows. It was such a delight to run software that never, ever crashed. It was crude, it was simple, but it was *incredibly* reliable, and that more than any other single thing is why I switched.
I find it quite ironic that Windows 2003, in the hands of capable admins, with all its design flaws and warts, is substantially more stable than is Linux. There's a reason Ars Technica switched from Linux to Windows, and stayed there. If anyone on the planet is competent, it's those guys. And from the sound of it, they're very happy with the results.
At this point, I'm so disgusted with this state of affairs that I'm running a test installation of FreeBSD. Their development cycle is much saner. They don't have as many features, but the ones they DO have, seem to work. Maybe they should add a new motto: "Software by Adults, for Folks Who Could Lose Their Job if it Breaks".
*sigh*
Re:What was wrong with the old way? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because your post smells like a troll.
Personally, I want software that works more than I want the latest whizbang feature
So, Linus barged into your office with a gun, demanding you run the latest kernel?
For what you want (sane development cycle), there are DISTRIBUTIONS. What's wrong with distributions, I ask you?
I'm a RedHat (not Fedora) man myself, but the sysadmins at work prefer Debian. To each his own, but ther
Re:What was wrong with the old way? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, look at their uptimes on netcraft. There average uptime plummeted to about half since they switched to windows. Sure its still "good enough", but how can you possibly say 2003 is more stable that linux? - especially substantially more stable?
Re:What was wrong with the old way? (Score:2)
Re:What was wrong with the old way? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, there is. Quoted from their article on the redesign [arstechnica.com]: I don't know - did they ever release that article documenting the thought process?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What was wrong with the old way? (Score:2)
Re:What was wrong with the old way? (Score:3, Interesting)
From the sounds of things, everyone competent there was utterly against the WindowsNT switch, which was introduced by management, caused horrible delays in shipping all their products, and caused most of the technical guys to leave.
But it sounded so much better as a soundbyte
Re:What was wrong with the old way? (Score:3, Insightful)
Please name the banks or hospitals that upgrade kernels every time Linus make a point release. If they really exist, I want to be sure to stay clear of them.
Re:Stable Kernel [Re:What was wrong with the old w (Score:3, Interesting)
All I'm fundamentally asking for is this: I want security fixes to Linux WITHOUT NEW FEATURES. I don't have time t
Re:What was wrong with the old way? (Score:2)
I for one... (Score:3, Funny)
This should help, if disciplined (Score:4, Interesting)
Right now, I consider 2.6 not stable enough for my own use. If I cannot compile and boot a Linus kernel on a simple install of GNU/Linux (whether SuSE or Debian) without major headaches and/or chasing down patches, well, that's not stable enough for me. YMMV.
Back in 2.4, I wasn't really happy until 2.4.18, and with all of the changes in 2.6, I won't be surprised to see it meet my definition of stable until 2.6.20 at the current pace.
So, I'm hoping that this new approach will really help.
Yeah, I agree, LinuS kernel is not good for prod. (Score:3, Funny)
Now back in my day, kernels were only found in nuts.
Re:Yeah, I agree, LinuS kernel is not good for pro (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This should help, if disciplined (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm really curious because I felt that after the disaster that the early 2.4 series was, the kernel team really pushed a good 2.6 release out and it's been quite smooth from 2.6.5.
Are you running strange hardware or binary-only drivers or something?
Re:This should help, if disciplined (Score:3, Interesting)
"Are you running strange hardware or binary-only drivers or something?"
I have had severe problems with consoles on the Radeon framebuffer device (fixed since 2.6.10),
and also serious trouble with IDE CD writers (which is partly a kernel issue, partly client software).
In 2.6.11, I can get a CD writer to work if I put it as Master as
Other than these specific issues, 2.6 has not been a problem for me, but both t
Re:This should help, if disciplined (Score:2)
I did too, but once I switched to VESA framebuffer, everything was fixed, much less of a headache to use VESA unless you have the need for hardware-accelerated framebuffer. I just use FB for the console, so hardware acceleration seeemed like it wasn't worth the headache.
As for CD burning, mine's much better since 2.6 came out. I particularly like that I no longer have to emulate SCSI over IDE to get my burner up-and-running. Have you tried ano
Re:This should help, if disciplined (Score:2)
Re:This should help, if disciplined (Score:2)
They didn't. It is still there. No patches needed.
Re:This should help, if disciplined (Score:2)
In my case, a large chunk of the IBM stack had issues. You could do a bit of hacking to get DB2 to work, but WebSphere and WSAD was a PITA on 2.6. They may have patches out there, but that was main reason I finally called uncle on my dev box and rolled back to 2.4.
Are you being too conservative ? (Score:2)
Right now, I consider 2.6 not stable enough for my own use. If I cannot compile and boot a Linus kernel on a simple install of GNU/Linux (whether SuSE or Debian) without major headaches and/or chasing down patches, well, that's not stable enough for me. YMMV.
I have the same philosophy regarding kernel stability, yet I've been running comping and installing 2.6, in the manner you describe, since 2.6.0, and have had no issues at all. No patches, purely the major 2.6 releases.
If you aren't running it, an
One problem (Score:2)
I wonder... (Score:4, Informative)
FYI, Andres Salomon's patchset provides the foundation for Debian's kernels and has been discussed recently on kerneltrap here [kerneltrap.org] and here [kerneltrap.org].
Hopefully Andres Salomon will keep on going (Score:2, Informative)
Linus only wants to put security patches and patches to bugs which cause a kernel hang or oops or compile failure to get into the 2.6.x.N patches:
Re:Hopefully Andres Salomon will keep on going (Score:2)
Andres also patches things that are plain broken, e.g. "sound doesn't work any more". By the law Linus established above, those kind of patches are forbidden to go into 2.6.x.N.
by that hyperbola Dell Inspiron broken keyboard fix shouldn't have gone in, but it is in 2.6.11.1, and is fully covered with holy penguin pee.
Why use x-y? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why use x-y? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why use x-y? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why use x-y? (Score:2, Funny)
True, they are much better for the development cycle
Re:Why use x-y? (Score:5, Funny)
Dunno (Score:3, Interesting)
Unavoidable (Score:5, Interesting)
There's nothing that wrong with depending on an organization (be it commercial like Mandrake or non-profit like Debian) to put together an appropriate Kernel for you. That's not to say you shouldn't give BSD a crack (diversity encourages vigour after all), but I don't think there's anything wrong with the way Kernel development is taking place. Those who needs a rock-solid unfliching kernel can always use a 2.4 series kernel, or use BSD (as you suggested).
Re:Unavoidable (Score:2)
Re:Unavoidable (Score:2)
Look, making a stable vanilla 2.6 kernel isn't hard: all they would have to do is take all the kernels with features added after 2.6.0, and rename them 2.7.x, and then just stick all the security and stability fixes into 2.6.0. I still don't see what was wrong with the old numbering scheme, but I do see what's wrong with this one.
Re:Dunno (Score:2)
It may be time. The old odd/even strategy was a bit goofy at times, but it at least had some semblance of stable/development branches. Its main problems were Linus' late branching and the propensity to add new features to the even branches.
But now even that has been blown to the wind. They're doing development work on their stable branch, because they only have one branch. Expect major disruptions if they ever decide to revamp some ke
Re:Dunno (Score:3, Informative)
If you would recall a recent interview Linus did, he said that there probably wasn't going to be anything like that in the near future, except possibly the tty stuff. Mostly just work on drivers and such. I would not be too surprised if the real reason that there is no 2.7 branch now is because there simply isn't any major system that needs a rewrite.
Re:Dunno (Score:2, Interesting)
release numbering ad absurdum (Score:2, Funny)
Re:release numbering ad absurdum (Score:3, Funny)
it wasn't until 2.6 .. (Score:3, Interesting)
For us laptop users... (Score:2)
This was fixed recently in 2.6.11
Kernel enthusiasts (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Kernel enthusiasts (Score:5, Funny)
You know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You know (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You know (Score:2)
I'm rather frightened by this, but I trust Linus is not a n00b, and realises the implications of his decisions.
There comes a time when the one who wears the crown is forced to realise that the kingdom is better off with a new leader, and ignores this fact to his peril. I pray that Mr. Torvalds has the wisdom and humility to pass on the torch when that time comes.
Soko
Re:You know (Score:2)
Linus should adopt my method, explained here (Score:2, Funny)
Then you've got your x.x.0 release. Basically, you subdivide your release schedule according to the major tasks needed to get there. So, for instance, if you're creating a video player, 0.1.0 would be to get something proof-of-concept running some basic video codec. 0.2.0 would be for major GUI additions, 0.3.0 would be for extra codeces, etc. These should adhere to a strict roadmap.
Next, you've got the x.x.x re
Two things I neglected to mention (Score:2, Funny)
2) Others might think that based on the way debian does things, you might want to put "stable" or "unstable". With all due respect to the folks at debian, I personally find this overkill.
Sounds a lot like tla (Score:2)
There, you get {archives}/2005-foo/2005-foo--mainline/2005-foo-m
Re:Linus should adopt my method, explained here (Score:2)
I don't like it (Score:3, Insightful)
I think instead, it is better to identify any kernel branch by the maintainer or distribution it comes from... pretty much as it already is. When I first started using Linux, I thought nothing of compiling a new kernel and getting things all tweaked out, installing patches and stuff like that. But lately, I see value in following structure in systems such as seeking out RPMs rather than compiling new things. It is far more simple and a lot less frustrating at times trying to keep up with my own set of kernel patches. (Oh, I cannot upgrade to the newest kernel because the So-n-so patch hasn't been updated yet) While the same is true or even slightly worse when it comes to RPM dependency, there is at least some structure and predictability to be found.
I predict that the change will be short lived as it will be found that people will become frustrated with keeping up with all these kernel revisions.
wheres the update process? (Score:2)
Re:wheres the update process? (Score:2)
If you want a stable system you should be upgrading kernels willy-nilly any way. Stick with your distro's kernel packages, at least those are tested for stability.
Re:Update is vendor's job (Score:2)
Linus rox (Score:2, Interesting)
Really stable? (Score:3, Interesting)
If going down another point level for bug fixes will help the problem, then I'm all for it. Just make it clear what people like me should be downloading.
Scared of 3 (Score:2, Insightful)
What is with people. Most open source projects seem to be scared of the number 1 so every piece of software is 0.x.y.z now the kernel people have become afraid of 3 (or maybe 7) either way this is just silly. I can see it now, in twenty years time we will be up to 2.9.9.9.9.3.8.1 because nobody will take the plunge and call it 3. At least the emacs people got a grip and just dropped the 0.
Re:Scared of 3 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Scared of 3 (Score:2, Informative)
And of course, the major number starts out as 0, so the only way the major number could be anything else is by introducing incompatible changes.
Libraries use similar rules, or at least rules with the sa
version naming is political art (Score:3, Insightful)
well, i'm not a big fan of prescriptive labeling [glug.org] in general.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Time to drop "2." "in 2.6.x.y"? (Score:2)
Re:Well, we appreciate it (Score:2)
Re:Well, we appreciate it (Score:3, Funny)