[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 3.0.0 kernel
- To: silug-discuss@silug.org
- Subject: Re: 3.0.0 kernel
- From: Corey Lanier <on3.40.se7en@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:04:22 +0900
- DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Kz9lC3l5O7PTr0M7gfDUCv2YHoAm5iP4GkCVTjFLj2o=; b=nWnQC38cR1ct3Ah0+xthT12+NqO/O7turIIOVOpjDHdVjTH4jb9e2kYF6HgjbCH6C1 5huoaqq0GARWZOSZwbR1uFo1BW+xi+08UVUHhbfkpHisIbmdMEwsa71KZlCgyIl/XUY6 M0eI7AByQzSENXjEWTsaC5y3PKDheEIv63S14=
- DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=kMAIHd4uXMEzCQ+BFiZNj/QxOYHLiMjPGEG/Y6ulj2+kQlUuP1v/0PSPbMhflkX8Zc zrVh5AjBDSK0vh84ESM8+9kHW7I032hc1rY1cVoD4xKu86csUnWQ5N/L0Fgwj+wLrJA7 kjPsOEtSQ8F56gInaL98LyfRseucQdz/hwB8Y=
- In-Reply-To: <504E3848-D033-4377-A0DD-084946BB89C4@chuck-king.com>
- Organization: Southern Illinois Linux Users Group
- References: <BANLkTikcht-Fe9OezLzE38K2HPaJTewRNw@mail.gmail.com><1306771801.6859.110.camel@lion.protogeek.org><c5b62b6d0ef71b8ec1c977d4055d9d53.squirrel@webmail.bucket440.com><BANLkTi=uxGS8b-SC-poPer_6_3Yx_meQ_g@mail.gmail.com><4DE3D980.9060602@thomasboxley.me><504E3848-D033-4377-A0DD-084946BB89C4@chuck-king.com>
- Reply-To: silug-discuss@silug.org
- Sender: silug-discuss-owner@silug.org
That's what I'm saying, and I honestly don't see a complete rebuild
being necessary within the next 3-5 years, probably within the next
decade. I could be wrong though, but right now, I think it's fine.
And while public opinion matters regarding widescale implimentation of
Linux, the version numbering system _shouldn't_ matter at all. I wish
there could be some form of education regarding version numbering to
the public, but sadly, that just won't happen.
I don't see Linus buckling to public opinion for 3.0.0, and not
letting it be a complete rewrite of the kernel. If it happens, it
will be a complete rebuild, and I don't see him proposing the idea
until its need is looming on the horizon.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Chuck @ chuck-king <chuck@chuck-king.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
--
Corey Lanier - AIM: on340se7en
MSN: on3.40.se7en@gmail.com
Yahoo: c4nt.missingperson - ICQ: 291479341
-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.