Linux Kernel 3.1 RC 2 Released 209
sfcrazy writes "Linus Torvalds has announced the release of Linux kernel 3.1 rc2. He said '300+ commits for -rc2 is good, but please make me even happier for -rc3 by ONLY sending me real fixes. Think of it as "fairly late in the -rc series," because I really want to compensate for the merge window being fairly chaotic.'"
Linus should just use Git Commit Object IDs (Score:5, Funny)
Problem solved.
We now return you to your discussion of version 322a8b034003c0d46d39af85bf24fee27b902f48, currently in progress...
Re:Linus should just use Git Commit Object IDs (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There can't be a <hash> version in progress because the hash is generated by all the contents (and history) of the commit.
Unless you're actually hardcore enough to modify code without changing the hash......
Damn, this feels like Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's with all the slashdot users recently, going fucking stupid about version numbering? Who cares what the versions are called: 3.10, 3.11.30 3.A03930. As long as the software works and the users (developers and end users alike) are able to interact with the software, what's the big issue?
Its evidence an underlying problem whereby projects are focusing their attention more on PR gimmicks and the 'gee-whiz' factor of version numbers than actually producing good software.
In the case of the Linux kernel I don't think that applies, after all the 2.6 kernel lasted many years and it is highly probable that 3.x will now do the same. With Firefox (and some others) however, the versioning itself is absurd and the new features being added in each version reflect the aforementioned attitude: "Hey lets
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the case of the Linux kernel I don't think that applies, after all the 2.6 kernel lasted many years and it is highly probable that 3.x will now do the same.
But it hasn't been that long since 3.0 was released and now they are already getting close to 3.1. At that rate they'll be up to 4.0 by the end of the year.
Re: (Score:2)
If the 3.x series follows the same pattern as the 2.6.x series, we could expect kernel 4.0 around the beginning of 2019.
My bosses care (Score:2)
After a change, I'm either going to get a few "why don't we have the latest patches" or why did you install the latest major change without the proper approval. Teaching upper management is not easy and I've got a dozen reading summary reports daily and "know" what the monthly patch changes "look like"
Some of us work in IT. We aren't students like you (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you, but there are many of us here who work professionally in the IT field. We don't have the luxury of being students such as yourself.
When you have to manage 80,000 or more desktops and servers, spread around the world, things like version numbers become very important. It's not so much the numbers themselves, but the expectations and facts that they should convey.
Responsibly using version numbers lets the software developers convey to us, the software administrators and users, important knowledge about the software they have created, and how it relates to earlier and future releases.
A major version number increase should signify massive changes. It should indicate to us that we should disregard any previous knowledge we have, and learn the software product from scratch. It indicates to us that we may need to provide extra assistance to the employees using the software we're tasked with administering. Do you get the idea? Are you beginning to follow what the real world is like? Yeah, it's not like what your computer science professors may have caused you to believe.
When projects start changing major version numbers without good reason, it makes us unsure about such projects. We lose the ability to predict how much of an impact upgrading will have, for instance. Worse, it gets executives asking questions. Even though Linux 3.0 is only slightly different from the last 2.6.39, the major version number jump makes some executives worry unnecessarily. They start to think that what's nothing more than a routine upgrade is more risky than it is.
I have colleagues in IT who have experienced similar problems with the recent Firefox debacle. They have to deal with users who don't want to upgrade from Firefox 4 to Firefox 5, thinking there will be major changes and adjustments, while there's almost no noticeable difference between the two "major" releases!
It hurts the adoption and acceptance of open source software when major projects start playing dumbass games like these with their version numbers. It does indeed create the so-called "FUD" for those who make decisions regarding the use of open source software.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If he's Lowe's, Lens Crafters or Taco Bell, just to name a few, he just may. A lot of retail is now using Linux for both POS, back office and servers.
Re: (Score:2)
When you do a company wide deployment you modify an existing distro. The one I used to maintain for AT&T Cable was based on RedHat but it was not redhat by the time we got done with it adding our special parts.
So yes, whoever is in charge of the In house Distro will care greatly about the kernel.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or perhaps ... just perhaps ... the many of you that work professionally in the IT field got lazy. Really, really lazy. Rather than actually evaluating the merits of a new software release for yourselves (as one would expect an actual professional to do), you lazily shirked your responsibility and expected someone else to do your job for you. For software you very likely didn't pay for, because it was provided to you free of charge, with full source code, access to the entire history of the code reposito
Re:Some of us work in IT. We aren't students like (Score:5, Insightful)
You are so ignorant you must be another student. Not the grand parent but some of us *do* pay for open source software. Out side of academia most people don't have the liberty of seat of your pants forum and IRC support when shit goes seriously wrong. Got a linux kernel bug? Your Redhat support contract may (if its serious enough) get Alan Cox on the phone (did some years ago, I realize he has now left Redhat). Got a table that is being completely mis optimized? Your Maria contract will get you Monty. I could go on and on. Open source software isn't just about free software for kids who think patents are yucky and everything should be free, its about quality software through open community development. Version numbers matter, they matter to executives, they matter to ignorant users who fear upgrades. They matter to those who pay those support bills and vendor contracts that fund open source software development.
-- Don't have 80k Linux desktops, but I do have 35k and growing Linux servers
Re:Some of us work in IT. We aren't students like (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. And by having the source code, scripts written for hundreds of use cases magically check and correct themselves.
The parent *is* right. It helps if the version numbering consistently indicates whats going on. Being lazy and trying to rely on this has means not consuming too much hours for getting things done. And its sad. If i would know that upgrading a linux machine or connecting new versions to a environment is unpredictable in a way which makes me consume too-many extra hours for nothing (instead of using these to check when the real changes arrive), then i would have to recommend Windows or Solaris.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, the USERS will notice the version number bump and it will make them all puckery, so there is ample reason to be sane with version numbers. Who is more retarded, someone who bumps a version number to get attention like a whore, or someone who wants the version number to mean something? I submit that the answer is you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd suggest that using version numbers for such a thing is an inherently poor way of doing it. I can't believe that someone in 'enterprise' would upgrade to a new Linux kernel without appropriate testing and fallback positions even if that kernel update was a same-version distro update that only contained a few b
Obviously some are not as experienced as they pret (Score:3)
Nearly every time somebody brings up "the real world" it's a sign they live in a insultated bubble themselves. A cube in a city of
Look around and you will see (Score:2)
As for "ad hominem", you are misusing it that term badly since it was instead a case of pointing out "a pot calling a kettle black". The GP post above was a pathetic attempt
Re:Some of us work in IT. We aren't students like (Score:5, Insightful)
Question:
Why is it easier to manage them when theres an extra, superfluous, unchanging "6" in between the major and minor version numbers?
I mean, linux was at 2.6 for like 8 years. And the time difference between Linux 1.0.0 and 1.2.0 was a measly 1 year. Linus apparently concluded that hanging onto a number in the middle for several years makes no sense (which it doesnt), and that it makes even less sense to have the major version contain 2 numbers punctuated by a dot.
He has reverted to the exact same system that most other software has used for ages, MAJOR.minor. What is your beef?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah the GP has a point when it comes to what Firefox has been doing but the new versioning for the Linux kernel isn't going down that route. As the parent said, it's just merging the first two numbers and there's no better time to do that then the next "major version" number switch (which would otherwise have been "2.8"). Even better in this case to start it at 3.0. So in reality this actually is a GOOD thing in terms of what the GP was posting about. It's a very clear line both in terms of when this c
Re: (Score:2)
It's hilarious how Slashdot likes to complain about Apple daring to charge for "minor" OS updates (it's only a point release!) but then gets all antsy over Linux moving to a standard major.minor scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be hard not to take this as negative, but I really mean it as an inquisitive question.
Shouldn't IT be looking at what's changing between patches and not worrying about version numbers? Also testing patches?
I've worked in IT, but not the part for the general day-to-day work, just the hard to solve problems. I know the other people at my work would test all Windows patches before pushing live.
Again, I haven't ever had to worry about these things, so I find it curious about "version numbers" being and
Re: (Score:3)
This confuses me. Why would executives care about the Linux kernels version number?
Surely you are using Foobar Enterprise Linux 5.x and whatever kernel they are supporting as stable? And you and your executives only need to worry about big disruptive changes when you move to
Re: (Score:3)
Extremely good points...except for the fact that almost no commercial software versions this way. Let's see....
Endnote 8 9 X X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 (all new major versions every year with mostly insignificant changes)
Office 2003 2007 2010 2011 (the 2003 -> 2007 was a pretty big UI bump, but otherwise mostly the same)
Photoshop CS3 CS4 CS5 (some significant new features for sure, but not "learn the software product from scratch")
Those are some examples I can come up with in five minutes, but there are lots more
Re: (Score:2)
THere was much, much bigger changes between Office 2003, 2007, and 2010 than just a UI bump, that was just the most visible. The Entire plugin structure has radically changed. I worked at a company that used literally hundreds of addins and macros (from tax calculating tools in excel, to enterprise email archiving tools in outlook). The sheer number of tools/scripts/apps that have had to be rewritten is about 10 times the cost of the actual licenses..
Also (Score:2)
If you aren't going to have some consistency in terms of version numbering, why bother with point releases at all? If shit is just going to be a "whatever" situation, then why have a divided number? Just have a single number that gets incremented each time you release an update, for any reason. That'll work if you what to have an indicator of what is newer, but don't want to bother deciding what kind of release it is.
If you are going to do point releases, then make that shit mean something. Have some consis
Re: (Score:2)
I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's more applicable to commercial closed-source software which usually justifies a major version upgrade (for which you have to pay) with new and exciting (?) features. IOW, the new features are a hook to get you spend money again for software you've already paid for. The changes have to be drastic otherwise you wouldn't pay, would you?
But free software is different. The changes are more incremental. In a way, it's like evolution. You don't go from ape to
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Linus is fed of listening this and has decided to change the versioning in a way more refl
Re: (Score:2)
> A major version number increase should signify massive changes. It should indicate to us that we should disregard any previous knowledge we have, and learn the software product from scratch
You said it: should. But it doesn't, since the eighties at least. So what do we do? skip useful software because of it? That would be even less professional than inflating version numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, "+5, insightful" for pretending IT professionals roll their own kernels or run the 'unstable' branch of $distro on 80,000 desktops or whatever. Slashdot truly has been taken over by gadget freaks and trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to nitpick, but I've yet to see anyone in IT actually upgrading a major version of the kernel. This is nearly unheard of except small, specialised Linux-shops. People tend to stick with whatever version came with their current version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux or whatever their vendor is (I'm going to assume RHEL for the rest of this post with little or no loss of generality).
Red Hat may issue small kernel upgrades, but they don't even change the minor kernel version, just the patch level version t
Re: (Score:2)
When projects start changing major version numbers without good reason, it makes us unsure about such projects.
Only for as long as it takes you to get around to reading the changelist. For the amount you're harping on about being a professional, you would be reading the changelist regardless of the version number delta, right?
Re: (Score:2)
It hurts the adoption and acceptance of open source software when major projects start playing dumbass games like these with their version numbers. It does indeed create the so-called "FUD" for those who make decisions regarding the use of open source software.
Bah.
IT organizations who have the sophistication required to manage their own kernel versions and seriously think about tracking the Linux releases have the sophistication and focus to understand what's really in the releases, regardless of the version numbers. Everyone else just uses the kernel version provided by their distro of choice, so it's the distro version numbers they care about.
Your uber-condescending post is drivel.
Re: (Score:2)
If those procedures involve people making guesses based on version numbers then they are shitty procedures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get over the version numbers people.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the version numbering matters. Because people with Cs in their titles make deployment decisions based on potentially false assumptions about the versioning. For example, there are going to be organizations stuck on firefox 4 for years because their CTO/CIO thinks that firefox 5 obviously represents a major upgrade and serious risk to their organization.
Re:Get over the version numbers people.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I can easily imagine that such organizations have much more dramatic problems than Mozilla's numbering scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
I can easily imagine that such organizations have much more dramatic problems than Mozilla's numbering scheme.
As long as they also have a large revenue and long term profitability, that is rather irrelevant.
A good CxO has to make decisions based on flawed or ill understood information. Often, the best decision is to try to avoid rocking the boat.
Re: (Score:2)
That's surely true, and yet none of those problems is going to be fatal. In some cases these companies have dealt with said problems for 10+ decades.
Re: (Score:2)
If the free market works then incompetent management will be replaced. Or the company will go under to be replaced by one that hires competent management. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the evidence is pretty clearly in on the free market not working.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that makes sense for dehumidifying labs, archives, and server rooms. I hope that such a scheme wouldn't be implemented by default in other buildings though - it seems pretty wasteful.
Reheater system. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FFS this site is getting pathetic with the whining about version numbers. Does it really matter that damned much if it's 2.26.41, or 3.1? Does it make any difference if it's called Firefox 3.8 or 6.0?
It makes a difference because version numbers are supposed to give you a clue about how much has changed. Now, suddenly after all these years, people are jacking up the version numbers while making only minor minor changes.
Re: (Score:2)
At least Linus is still using numbers. Thank the stars! Linux version numbers still make sooo much more sense than calling one "wacky walrus" & the next "tall timber" or some goddamn thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound as if you've never looked at the root Makefile...
Re: (Score:2)
Those are release names that you're complaining about also have version numbers too using a different versioning scheme. They use "(year).(month)" as the version number to denote releases. For a distro this makes sense as you want to know how old a release is that you're downloading.
Also every operating system has release names, windows vista, apple's lion OS for example. It seems pretty redundant to point at just linux.
actually it has a name, too (Score:2)
The current codename is "Wet Seal".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
ever heard of "winver" - it shows the real windows version number.
http://www.nirmaltv.com/2009/08/17/windows-os-version-numbers/ [nirmaltv.com]
this is what mozilla could've done - a version number which is used by extensions (4.0, 4.0.1, 4.1.0, 4.1.1, etc.) and an external version number for marketing purposes: Firefox 5, Firefox XT, Firefox ME, etc.
this is one thing that I believe Microsoft has done right.
version numbers have a meaning - my opinion is that people who say "get over the version numbers" do not hav
Re: (Score:2)
Linus made a one-time change because the old Linux version numbering scheme didn't match reality. 2.6.23 to 2.6.24 was a pretty big bump feature-wise but sounds like a trival patch. Under the new system, that would be 3.1 to 3.2. Isn't that what you're asking for--numbers which indicate how much has changed?
When is a number not just a number (Score:3, Funny)
I'm waiting for the 3.11 release, just for shits and giggles.
Re: (Score:2)
300+commits (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Damn, this feels like Firefox. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, the *2.6* SERIES is quite different even from itself. Meanwhile the 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4 series had at least mostly had stabilized API/ABIs during the time of their existance, occasionally getting features backported (Thinking about USB,Wifi, and a few filesystem module primarily there). 2.6 however was having constant and incompatible changes ever 5-10 minor numbers. Devfs droppage, incompatible udev changes (Ever tried updating a system only to have it temporarily hosed because you had the wrong udev version running and all your device entries are now wrong??), constant gfx abi breakage (see nvidia/ati drivers constantly being 2-5 minor nums behind, and then having to drop older support for maintainability).
While a jump to 2.8 for the aforementioned features stabilizing would make sense, with a 2.9 dev branch started to restandardize 'stable' versus 'experimental' changes the jump to 3.0 was entirely unwarranted and just more of the me-tooness that linux seems to be have been heading towards for a good 5 years now. Honestly the only thing holding me to linux at this point is a lack of desire to have to repartition my disks using bsd slices, and a lack of alternative open source OSe that are actually robust enough to boot on all my hardware. (I have reference spec dual processor 440FX systems, the same chipset emulated by qemu, and despite being developed on it, ReactOS, Haiku, Solaris, and a few others never make it out of their first stage bootloaders, on IDE, SCSI, or SATA. Disappointing to say the least.)
Combined with the current Gnome BS (Which anyone who has tried running it on an system dated '04 or earlier will attest to.), there's not a lot of motivation to use linux over alternatives such as Windows, or a Mac/Hackintosh OSX box. The latter two might be slow, but nowadays with a 'desktop' GUI, so is the former. And it seems like the bureaucratic messes running these 'foundations' are so focused on 'features' and 'moving forward', that they've forgotten that one of great strengths of UNIX has always been it's long term compatibility.
For another example of this fubar'ing, Go look at GNU coreutils, and as an example, try running the old Loki linux game demos on it. Gee, don't work too well? They decided to deprecate and remove the - feature of head and tail, leading to breakage of numerous scripts dating back how many decades? Additionally, while I may be wrong, the line number feature they replace it with hadn't even EXISTED back in those days, and so for the sake of (whatever rationale was used) they broke it, knowing full well it would cause lots of peoples software to break in unexpected and possibly silent manners.
Would you trust this sort of mentality with YOUR long term software needs?
(And no, contrary to the belief set forth I am not a shill for MS or Apple. In fact I have a rather low opinion of both. I just happen to also hold many of the unilateral development decisions pushed by 'benevolent dictators' (not just Linus! Go look at glibc for another example!) in utter contempt due to their throwing the baby out with the bathwater, especially given the ever increasing bloat in many of the applications, libraries and kernel (C'mon, seriously, removing backwards compatibility while adding *10* extra features that add a meg of code 9/10s of people will never use while removing the one feature they will?!?!).
I'll just end this rant by asking: 'How many of you have been bit by one of the aforementioned issues, and what is your take on the modern 'MBA' mentality that seems to be creeping it's way into the open source ecosystem?'
Re: (Score:3)
... Honestly the only thing holding me to linux at this point is a lack of desire to have to repartition my disks using bsd slices, ...
Don't let that stop you - FreeBSD at least has supported GPT partitioning for some time, so you don't have to mess around with slices if you don't want to.
-Ster
Re: (Score:2)
... Honestly the only thing holding me to linux at this point is a lack of desire to have to repartition my disks using bsd slices, ...
Don't let that stop you - FreeBSD at least has supported GPT partitioning for some time, so you don't have to mess around with slices if you don't want to.
Oh thank {$deity} and praise {$baby_deity} ! That was one huge learning curve I was NOT looking forward to getting over.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My take? It's been enough for me to completely abandon any further attempts to convert to Linux until they stop fucking with things. I'm sticking with Windows 7 for now because it's proven to me to me a mature, very solid and surprisingly stable platform to run all of my software (both pro
Re: (Score:3)
As for the other things, the changes to GNOME & the kernel. Perhaps it is in large part thr
Re: (Score:3)
"eeds to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world "
I'm sorry , which "modern world" are you talking about? The one where the GUI gets in the fscking way of what the user actually wants to do?
"If the improvements break something in user land then tough."
No , its not "tough" , its moronic. Backwards compatability is not a nice-to-have , its a pretty damn fundamental to businesses and normal users. If you don't understand this then stay away from software development because you're obviously utte
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry , which "modern world" are you talking about? The one where the GUI gets in the fscking way of what the user actually wants to do?
I'm talking about the compositing desktop world. You know, the world that has allowed Windows and OS X desktops to race ahead and be dramatically more useful (for games, video etc.), responsive (by harnessing the GPU) and attractive (by using compositing technology) than Linux counterparts. I'm talking about GNOME (and KDE) not sitting on their hands and ignoring user interface and usability developments which have happened in the last 10 years elsewhere. Maybe you're happy stuck in the year 2000 like some
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm talking about the compositing desktop world"
Compositing is a function of the X server you clueless gimp , it has NOTHING to do with the window manager/desktop.
"You're not calling me utterly clueless, you're calling the Linux kernel developers utterly clueless including Linus Torvalds because this is the way the kernel has been developed for the LAST 20 YEARS."
Yes , and I've never been a fan of this approach. But its got a lot worse recently.
"No kernel be it Linux, Windows or OS X pledges backwards "
All
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Complete crap.
Compositing is an X server extension , its not up for debate. A window manager is not required to support it for an app to be able to use it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_(graphics) [wikipedia.org]
You might want to try this while you're at it:
xdpyinfo | grep Composite
Get back to me when you get a clue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No , its not "tough" , its moronic. Backwards compatability is not a nice-to-have , its a pretty damn fundamental to businesses and normal users.
Not really. If, as a business, we have a need to run some old proprietary software that requires RedHat 4, then we will run in in a VM, so we get the complete software stack that the software was originally written and tested on. We certainly don't expect software that was released a decade ago to run on systems that it was never designed or tested for, and we wouldn't waste time trying to make it work when the VM option is available. This isn't specific to Linux either - if we have an app that requires Wi
Re: (Score:2)
Thats all well and good, but someone has to take the time to find a host for the VM , set it up including updates, logins and all the various mappings and then maintain it. And thats before you get into performance considerations.
VMs arn't a magic bullet, in fact for a lot of things they're barely a bullet at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>Now we see the same thing happening to the Linux kernel.
Not quite. Chrome and FF release major versions often. According to wiki, this is the first major version change of Linux since June 1996.
And linux still has some significance in the numbers after the three numbers, but the x.x.x don't matter, really. They might as well be doing linux 4 and 5 and so on in the coming months. It's because of the way they develop (and, as in the case of linux have been developing for years) - they just do their thing
Re: (Score:2)
And Debian. Let's not forget Debian.
Actually, infrastructure projects shouldn't be evolving that fast. At the risk of confusing matters somewhat, they're like elephants carrying a gaggle of mice. If they move too fast, the mice will just fall off, and have you ever tried to recompile a box of rodents during a bull run?
Linux has being releasing this fast since 2.6 (Score:2)
Linux 2.6.1 was released only three weeks after 2.6.0. By my count there were 10 releases in 2004, and then 4-5 releases every year after that. This works out okay for the kernel since the "official" kernel is treated as the beta kernel for most distributions, which update less frequently and with more testing, and about once a year, they designate a kernel for long-term support, and it receives bug patches.
Firefox releases are user facing, however and I have yet to hear any plan for long term support of ve
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that a four part version number (first three being the standard and the fourth being used for variants such as the stable series and the distro trees) is a Good Thing. A three part number doesn't gain you very much and won't be stuck to anyway.
The change in the major number was also a Good Thing. It revealed bugs in software that used hard-coded values, for example. This is the twenty-first century AD, guys, hard-coding stopped being useful when we stopped chiseling values into cave walls.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I consider it a praise to a piece of software if the only thing people can bitch about is its release numbering system.
Indeed, but even better when they don't even bitch about version numbering. Even weird versioning, like that of TeX [wikipedia.org], is forgiven when the product is exceptionally good.
Re:version inflation (Score:5, Informative)
Re:version inflation (Score:5, Funny)
.. the difference between 3.0 and 3.1 is the same as something like 2.6.24 to 2.6.25
Plus after 3.1 there will be "3.1 for Workgroups".
Re: (Score:2)
.. the difference between 3.0 and 3.1 is the same as something like 2.6.24 to 2.6.25
Plus after 3.1 there will be "3.1 for Workgroups".
Well they could do the same numbering as Mozilla until they pass 8 or 9, that will show them :)
Re: (Score:2)
That was a decade ago accomplished with kernel 2.4.11.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Sounds like version inflation to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, if you happen to live in the land of Apshai.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't like the dropping of the last number from the version. I Liked that the major version number was 2.6, and wished the new major number was 3.0 rather than 3.
In a few months we'll have 3.2, then a few months we'll have 3.3... Just seems too fast...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some in Internet terms distant year called and wanted their way of numbering Linux back :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Aren't the odd decimal places development branches?
Linus stopped using that method back in 2004. Where have you been?
Re:version inflation (Score:5, Funny)
compiling
Re:version inflation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:version inflation (Score:5, Funny)
Ha Ha Ha. Laugh it up Mr. Funnyman. The extra 5% boost I get out of these optimizations is going to blow your god damn socks off.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's got mozilla disease. 10 year at 2.6, then 3.0, now 3.1.
I'm guessing they just dropped the unnecessary middle number. It used to be that the major number was more like 2.6 not 2. They just finally did some garbage collection of the name, sort of?
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's got mozilla disease. 10 year at 2.6, then 3.0, now 3.1.
I'm guessing they just dropped the unnecessary middle number. It used to be that the major number was more like 2.6 not 2. They just finally did some garbage collection of the name, sort of?
A problem they might not have had if they hadn't stuck the 4th number on the end in the first place...
Re: (Score:2)
I remember a few years ago Linus said there would never be a kernel 3.0
Re:version inflation (Score:4, Informative)
I think what he said was that if he ever went to 3.0, it would mean he had gone insane and rewritten the entire thing in Visual Basic [lkml.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Wait!! Don't panic, I'll start looking through the dbus man pages for an answer.
Re: (Score:2)
This was resolved some 11 years go: http://segfault.org/writing/segfault.org/Bus.html [segfault.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never happen! Linus wouldn't be seen dead in a bus!
Ha!