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
>>
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
> "unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.