Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems Software Upgrades Linux

Linus Torvalds Says Linux 4.0 Could Be Out In Three Years 174

Posted by timothy from the next-step-only-got-to-3.3 dept.
darthcamaro writes "The wait between Linux 2.x and 3.x was a long one, but the wait to Linux 4? Well, that will only be a matter of three years, according to Linus Torvalds. '"It's just mentally much easier for people to remember the small number," Torvalds said during the LinuxCon conference in San Diego [Wednesday]. "We'll do 4.0 in three years maybe when the sub numbers have grown in the 20's and our feeble brains can't handle it."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linus Torvalds Says Linux 4.0 Could Be Out In Three Years More

Linus Torvalds Says Linux 4.0 Could Be Out In Three Years

Comments Filter:

  • Firefox (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30, 2012 @07:49AM (#41177149)

    Firefox will be up to 1,376,265.1 by then.

  • Also, not covered in the summary, just like the GCC 4.X series, it will finally compile in C++.

    </joke target="for the impaired">

  • Operating Systems research is dead (Score:4, Funny)

    by Hazel Bergeron ( 2015538 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @07:55AM (#41177197) Journal

    These days it's all about dumb terminals and VAXclusters.

    • These days it's all about dumb terminals and CLOUDS

      FTFY

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No it isn't.
      Just a couple of years ago I saw an interesting talk about an experimental OS for multicore where the kernel is distributed over the different cores.
      Just because the commercial sector isn't doing shit, doesn't mean research isn't happening.

    • Not dead. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Focusing on parallel execution and efficient scheduling of large number of processors.

      Scheduling is now a rather complex item requiring more than just memory+ready to run.

      Memory (where is the memory in a distributed system).
      ready to run (where is the available processor)
      scheduling additional constraints such as communication delays between memory and processor, between processor and peripheral, between peripheral and memory (DMA).
      How to compute appropriate weighting efficiently, and fast.
      Detecting complex d

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by wiredog ( 43288 )

      Reminds me of college!

  • So he's saying... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SpectreBlofeld ( 886224 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @07:56AM (#41177215)

    ...that age is just a number?

    Alternatively: "Life begins at 4.0".

  • Just numbers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30, 2012 @07:57AM (#41177221)

    Judging from 3.0 which didn't have any breakthrough features included, this is just silly numbers talk.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I hope they will at least break backwards compatibility in order to justify the change.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by olau ( 314197 )

        I hope they will at least break backwards compatibility in order to justify the change.

        They did that in a clever way with 3.0. See, many scripts were relying on the 2.6.x numbering scheme, or at least a triple scheme of x.y.z, so just by changing the version number they broke a lot of stuff. Clever!

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by mspohr ( 589790 )

          How stupid do you have to be to assume a specific number scheme will exist in the future?

    • Re:Just numbers (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @08:07AM (#41177307) Homepage Journal

      Judging from 3.0 which didn't have any breakthrough features included, this is just silly numbers talk.

      that's exactly what he said, it's just a number.

      • Version numbers? We can increment them!

    • I'm sure "new" features will be added, but they won't be tied to any particular major number upgrade. This has been the way OpenBSD has been numbering its releases. OpenBSD 4.9 is simply the version that came before OBSD 5.0, which is the version that came before the current 5.1 release.

      Maybe Linus wants to catch up to Theo? Linux kernel releases occur twice as fast as OpenBSD releases, so who knows. I kind of prefer the Ubuntu numeric versioning scheme that lets you know at a glance how old a release is. T

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jonner ( 189691 )

      The fact that there is no specific meaning attached to Linux 3.0 or 4.0 is exactly what Linus is saying.

  • Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CadentOrange ( 2429626 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @07:57AM (#41177225)
    They're merely version numbers, after all.

    • Well, the style or philosophy of verioning really shouldn't matter all that much, but one should have a consistent philosophy, rather than just "well, we are all tired of being stuck on version 3." If the linux kernel is changing philosophy, it should do so with purpose and intention IMO. It's a very big, stable project, and it's versioning system should be as respectable as the product.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nimey ( 114278 )

      To some people it certainly does, to judge by the panty-twisting about Chrome's and Firefox's version numbers.

  • Small number? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30, 2012 @07:58AM (#41177231)

    It's just mentally much easier for people to remember the small number,"

    How about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001?

    .

    Captcha: impudent - is Slashdot trying to tell me something?

    • It's just mentally much easier for people to remember the small number,"

      How about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001?

      .

      Captcha: impudent - is Slashdot trying to tell me something?

      Or as we like to call it, Charles.

  • Eh... (Score:4)

    by O('_')O_Bush ( 1162487 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @07:59AM (#41177241)
    Most Linus users don't know their kernel version anyways. They just know their distro, and maybe distro version, and never care to look at what is under the hood.

    Usability be damned, I would prefer they encode the version number in I's,N's, and U's. Running kernel version Liiinnnnnnuuux.

    • Most Linus users don't know their kernel version anyways. They just know their distro, and maybe distro version...

      My distro doesn't have versions, you insensitive clod!

      Seriously though, HUGE fan of Arch, and as far as I can tell if you're going to give one number to indicate what "version" your entire system is on Arch, it's probably gonna be the kernel version. Then again, I suppose Arch and "Most Linux users" may be mutually exclusive sets...

      • Re:Eh... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @08:34AM (#41177565) Journal

        There are only two versions of Arch. Up to date and out of date.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by zoloto ( 586738 )
        Gentoo users have been replaced by Arch users for the most annoying "groupies" in the linux world.

    • Usability be damned, I would prefer they encode the version number in I's,N's, and U's. Running kernel version Liiinnnnnnuuux.

      I am old enough for this to recall scary LILO error messages to my mind. Aurgh!

    • I second that recommendation. It's kinda the goooooooogle effect, but it's awesomely funny, and also practical. The best part is that nobody could claim it was just a copy of Windows or MacOS.

    • That's a very good point. Ask a MacOS user what version of Mach he/she is running and I doubt they'd be able to tell you. For that matter it's the same for the windows kernel too.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Tarlus ( 1000874 )

        Ask a MacOS user what version of Mach he/she is running

        The most likely response: "Uhm, it's pronounced 'Mac.' 'MAC.'"

  • 3.20's? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tubal-Cain ( 1289912 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @08:02AM (#41177259) Journal

    We'll do 4.0 in three years maybe when the sub numbers have grown in the 20's and our feeble brains can't handle it.

    If your numbers are going to be arbitrary, why not roll them over at 3.9?

    • "If your numbers are going to be arbitrary, why not roll them over at 3.9?"

      Probably because that wouldn't be arbitrary [merriam-webster.com].

    • If your numbers are going to be arbitrary, why not roll them over at 3.9?

      Because it's Linus's choice of arbitrary number, not yours?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tibman ( 623933 )

      Because that would limit you to only 9 Minor changes.

  • What? (Score:2)

    by fa2k ( 881632 )

    So they went to 2.6 for the previous major version and now they're going to 3.30? How is that not a longer wait?

  • Even Torvalds now? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Urza9814 ( 883915 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @08:24AM (#41177467)

    When will this quick versioning madness end?!!?

  • I don't even have to think about the kernel (Score:3)

    by jones_supa ( 887896 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @08:47AM (#41177669)
    The kernel has been in a very good shape for a long time already. It's already a "It Just Works(TM)" thing. The aspects that I am interested seeing advancing are in the userspace: desktop environment and games.

    • The kernel has been in a very good shape for a long time already. It's already a "It Just Works(TM)" thing

      You must not be waiting for bcache or for serial wacom.

      • Well, bcache is indeed very interesting. Such feature is only available at DragonFlyBSD at the moment.

        • Well, bcache is indeed very interesting. Such feature is only available at DragonFlyBSD at the moment.

          I believe some storage appliance dist has support for dm-cache, which is similar. It is not headed for inclusion AFAIK though, and bcache supposedly is.

  • Version nonsense (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GeekWithAKnife ( 2717871 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @08:56AM (#41177785)
    Does this make any sense really? We thought there will be a move from 2.6 to 2.8, all-of-a-sudden we had version 3.0 (Where are my .4 worth of upgrades BTW?) How much time did it take to move from 2.6 to 3.0? Considering the current, latest kernel is 3.5, it could be decided tomorrow that the next update will warrant a version 4.0. What does this version business equate to? how can you measure how much better it is based on this "version"? Would it not make more sense to date stamp the release? At least that way you'd know that X development time was put in between 3.5.1 & 3.5.2. I think we need a better system than "version".

    • The move from 2.6.39 to 3.0 was not a 2.6 to 3.0 move. In effect the idea was that the leading "2" is basically meaningless in the current model, so they chose to reduce it to two numbers instead of three. Once that decision was made, they chose a simple increment from 2 to 3 as the leading digit.

    • Considering the current, latest kernel is 3.5, it could be decided tomorrow that the next update will warrant a version 4.0. What does this version business equate to? how can you measure how much better it is based on this "version"?

      Obviously that version will be .5 better then this one!

  • what happened to the days when 2.0 meant that it was either a complete rewrite or it had significant changes that made it incompatible with 1.x and had undergone extensive testing to qualify it as a "stable" release?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tarlus ( 1000874 )

      Mozilla and Google happened.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )
      I'm using a commercial package with the version number R5000.0.8.0.1, with no other way to refer to it to distinguish it from other versions, and the confusing number is right there in the users face as the window label. Previously they had a version 2003.19.1 that came out around 2009 where they had long broken the point of the versioning numbers as year, month, patchlevel.
      In comparsion to a lot of stuff the linux version numbering is vastly saner so I consider this a non-issue.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close