Re: 3.0.0 kernel

["Chuck @ chuck-king" <chuck@chuck-king.com>]

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



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