Originally posted by duby229
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Linus Torvalds Still Deciding Linux 3.20 vs. Linux 4.0
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by duby229 View PostNo shit!? Now some anime I've been watching makes more sense.
Also, DX skipped four exactly due to this, but LibreOffice seems fine...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Helios747 View PostAnd pls don't respond with "Well VMWare's bad, it's not open source", I really don't care.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ericg View PostYeah the GTK / GNU release style.. never really got the point of it, like it just seems like it'd be confusing for newcomers since theyd be trying to find the odd numbered versions naturally assuming that it goes 2.0 --> 2.1 --> 2.2. But that's a different topic entirely lol
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by duby229 View PostI remember those times before 2.6. Every even numbered release was "stable" and every odd numbered release was "testing". Starting at 2.0 and 2.1, then 2.1 became 2.2, etc, until 2.5 became 2.6. That's when Torvalds really decided it was time to stop breaking shit. That's when 2.6 became a rolling release.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ericg View PostVersion numbers as a whole are completely arbitrary anyway, they matter yes (in relation to eachother) but they as a whole scheme are arbitrary. There's no "pointless breakage" either, apps that only check for "2.6.x" or "2.4.x" broke anyway during the shift to 3.x. Any app written to take account for 3.0 should've been written to take into account for the fact that the version number is subject to change as shown by the move from 2.6.x to 3.x. If anything breaks at this point it is completely the developer's fault as they were warned.
I really don't get all the hate that surrounds version numbers, whether it be the kernel or anything else. We've hit the point technologically where there aren't revolutionary releases and everything is more evolutionary-- release early and release often. Plus the benefit of Linus' "Dont break shit" policy in the kernel means that there would likely never be a "We broke everything. Major version bump." release anyway. The last time that happened was like 2004 during the switch from 2.4 to 2.6-- 11yrs ago. (God 2004 was 11 years ago...)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Helios747 View PostI don't particularly care myself, but didn't quite a few scripts break when the kernel jumped from 2.6 to 3.0? IIRC, VMWare player went a little crazy when attempting to compile modules because of the version jump, had troubles finding the kernel headers or something, quickly patched by VMWare (And had workarounds anyways) but still. How many things will break this time?
And pls don't respond with "Well VMWare's bad, it's not open source", I really don't care. I lurk this forum enough to know that a bunch of you like to make that argument for the sake of arguing. I like to use VMWare.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: