In the DoD, especially, major version steps indicate rearchitecting and/or core redesigns, and can drive massive amounts of testing and paperwork to get things like an authority to operate. So, while marketing often drives version number jumps, I like major versions to stay the same unless someone actually does a wholesale rebuild. Just sayin' Chuck King On May 30, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Thomas Boxley wrote: > Jason Schindler hit the nail on the head. Version numbers are usually a > very big deal in the public opinion, just ask Mozilla, with it's Firefox > 5.0 release in June already. > > I think they should take the step to 3.0. When I first started using > Linux, I was somewhat surprised at the low version number, even after 17 > years of development. I know version numbers are usually kept low in all > FOSS projects, but when you do have something as big and popular as the > Linux kernel itself, and when you realize that most people associate > version numbers with project maturity, version 3.0 would be a step in > the right direction. > > -- > Thanks, > Thomas Boxley > <http://thomasboxley.me> > > On 05/30/2011 12:21 PM, Corey Lanier wrote: >> I guess I don't really see all the fuss in whether or not there will ever be >> a 3.0.0 kernel. As long as linux continues to develop and make the advances >> it has been, then the fuss over etymology is irrelevant. >> >> I also highly doubt Linux will require the major rewrite for 3.0.0 anytime >> soon. But whatever makes the kernel better, I'm all for. >> >> On May 30, 2011 1:14 PM, "Jason M. Schindler" <jschindler@bucket440.com> >> wrote: >>> The answer to "what's in a name" is sometimes surprising when dealing with >>> version numbers. People (or at the very least, any customer I've worked >>> with) tend to attach big meanings to version numbers of products. "It's >>> only version 1.2? But you've been working on it for 6 months!" >>> >>> I like to think of major version changes as the time to cut backwards >>> compatibility for the bad ideas of the past. Most customers recognize >>> that when the big number changes, it means there might be some pain >>> involved in updating. >>> >>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Political_and_cultural_significance_of_version_numbers >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 10:43 -0500, Steve Reindl wrote: >>>> >>>>> I remember reading somewhere, not too awful long ago some FUD about >>>>> never seeing a 3.0 kernel because the 2.6 kernel was so mature. >>>>> Apparently Linus is having none of it. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTUwMg >>>> >>>> >>>> A rose by any other name -- formerly known as kernel 2.6.40. It has >>>> nothing really that special or innovative over kernel 2.6.39. >>>> >>>> --Doc