Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Farewell To The Linux 2.6 Kernel?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    I think they should just start using binary for version numbers.
    ie:

    Kernel 10.110.11100
    Last edited by deanjo; 10-18-2008 at 04:53 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    I think they should just start using binrary for version numbers.
    ie:

    Kernel 10.110.11100
    Okay... I change my vote to THAT.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    30

    Default

    i don't like it at all. Just keep it simple like today. Whats wrong with having a 2.7.x, 2.8.x, 2.9.x, 3.0, etc. It is simple and we can clearly see which version is newer.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Hmmm... I for sure would like something different than 2.6.xxx. Given how long "2.6" is around this prefix doesn't give much information anymore. How "old" e.g. is 2.6.13? Well, it's like "14 versions old", which give a rough idea of "outdated", but if this is how versions are compared one could just as well drop the "2.6" and call it "Linux 27", "Linux 28", ... which looks pretty stupid.

    So I'd definately appreciate the year (and if possible/meaningful month, too) to be in the version number, so one can relate to it on a human scale.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12

    Default

    This would be a big step in the wrong direction and really should be resisted. The current linux versioning scheme reflects the actual work, the actual technical milestones, and the relative stability of the kernel. Do I care what year and month it was released? No, because with this model of development progress is measured in work and innovation accomplished not predetermined product shipping deadlines.

    Those people who wish to replace 2.6.27 with "linux 2008 SP3" need to have their heads examined.
    Last edited by khaije1; 10-25-2008 at 12:45 AM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SavageX View Post
    Hmmm... I for sure would like something different than 2.6.xxx. Given how long "2.6" is around this prefix doesn't give much information anymore. How "old" e.g. is 2.6.13? Well, it's like "14 versions old", which give a rough idea of "outdated", but if this is how versions are compared one could just as well drop the "2.6" and call it "Linux 27", "Linux 28", ... which looks pretty stupid.

    So I'd definately appreciate the year (and if possible/meaningful month, too) to be in the version number, so one can relate to it on a human scale.

    Sorry, don't mean to sound like a troll with this reply but why doesn't Nexiuz follow this scheme then?

    Quote Originally Posted by khaije1 View Post
    This would be a big step in the wrong direction and really should be resisted. The current linux versioning scheme reflects the actual work, the actual technical milestones, and the relative stability of the kernel. Do I care what year and month it was released? No, because with this model of development progress is measured in work and innovation accomplished not predetermined product shipping deadlines.

    Those people who wish to replace 2.6.27 with "linux 2008 SP3" need to have their heads examined.
    Amen

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •