Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Farewell To The Linux 2.6 Kernel?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Linux does not revolve around ubuntu.
    LoL... I never said it did. That was kind of a joke. Calm down and browse to the website of your favorite distro.

    I still like the idea of numbering by time, because it makes you aware of the progress. If 2.6 is going to be on the front of everything from now on... why even have it?

    I have another idea: how about we drop the major and minor revision levels, and use latitude and longitude? I mean, if we're going to use the fourth dimension for one of the numbers... why not have the other two relate to where Linus was sitting when he did the commit?

    -J

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3vi1 View Post
    I still like the idea of numbering by time, because it makes you aware of the progress. If 2.6 is going to be on the front of everything from now on... why even have it?
    I would see nothing wrong with going to a new major number. Enough has changed IMHO from 2.6.0 that it warrants it. I just don't think the numbering system should be tied to a value of no real relevance to it's development. Dates are what time stamps are for.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    I would see nothing wrong with going to a new major number. Enough has changed IMHO from 2.6.0 that it warrants it. I just don't think the numbering system should be tied to a value of no real relevance to it's development. Dates are what time stamps are for.
    I can respect that opinion. I wouldn't be adverse to losing the first two digits entirely... it just seems that the version numbers might continue rising at a pace that makes non-techies "feel" it's unstable.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    176

    Default

    there are better things to bother about than this . and i am sure this is almost like the last thing that would come to anyone's mind .

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3vi1 View Post
    If my opinion meant anything (which it doesn't) I would vote to go with the time base numbering - but drop the stupid Millennium and century. It would have the added benefit of putting the major numbers in sync with Ubuntu, and put the current number 1 ahead of the next Windows release.

    Kubuntu 8.10, with kernel 8.27.7!

    And, only when a minor number changes should the major number change. Also, patch levels should never change the major number. That is to say - at the stroke of midnight 8.28-12 does not become 9.28.12. The next patch would still be 8.28.13... etc. 9.29.1 would be the first "new" kernel. Let the minor revision climb until there's an major re-architecture of some piece of the kernel.

    -J
    This would only lead to more confusion, the current scheme is easier to understand and works fine. Also, like deanjo said, time-based numbering makes no sense for most OSS projects since they will release when they feel the release is ready, not because of some deadline approaching (some exceptions being Ubuntu, Fedora, Gnome, KDE, etc etc).

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    501

    Default

    Honestly, the kernel version doesn't matter to most users. To the rest of us, we have one we already understand quite well, and are used to, so why change it "just because"?

    I for one like the current scheme. It's simple and it works. So I hope they'll stick around to 2.6.30 (hey, 2.0 got up to 2.0.40, so what's the problem?) and beyond.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3vi1 View Post
    I have another idea: how about we drop the major and minor revision levels, and use latitude and longitude? I mean, if we're going to use the fourth dimension for one of the numbers... why not have the other two relate to where Linus was sitting when he did the commit?

    -J
    That would be cool! Weird, but cool! But it should be in UTM not lat+long, UTM would make it just at tad more confusing :-P

    /Sinner

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    77

    Default

    We could just assume the 2.6 and call it 28, 29, 30 from now on, per one of the suggestions listed in the article. I kinda like that idea.

    Before 2.6.27 came out, I tried explaining to someone that the next version of the Linux kernel would have the Atheros drivers in it. Saying "Two point six point twenty-seven" out loud was clunky and overwhelming.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sinner View Post
    ... UTM would make it just at tad more confusing :-P

    /Sinner
    Okay, I'm for it then.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aaaantoine View Post
    We could just assume the 2.6 and call it 28, 29, 30 from now on, per one of the suggestions listed in the article. I kinda like that idea.
    As I said to another: I'm not against that idea - it would eliminate the numbers that are no longer relevant, and that's a good thing. The only fear I have is that neophytes might say "VERSION 28?!?! SOUNDS LIKE THEY HAVE TO KEEP UPDATING IT TO FIX BUGS!!!"

    I know: It's a ridiculous age we live in, where you need to keep version numbers between 5 and 10 for consumer confidence and emotional reasons. If Linus did decide to drop the first two numbers, I would fully support it and correct any online misconceptions I saw stated based on the high rate of change in the version numbers.

    Hey... why does the spell-checker think "online" is misspelled?

Posting Permissions

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