Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 5.0-rc6 Released - Still On Track For A Normal Release

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux 5.0-rc6 Released - Still On Track For A Normal Release

    Phoronix: Linux 5.0-rc6 Released - Still On Track For A Normal Release

    Linus Torvalds has just issued the sixth weekly release candidate for the upcoming Linux 5.0 kernel, which should debut as stable around the end of the month...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...0-rc6-Released

  • Spam
    replied
    Originally posted by linner View Post
    The kernel used to follow the traditional model.

    version.version.xx = bug updates
    version.xx.version = added features
    xx.version.version = major rewrites, fundamental architecture changes, etc.

    Nowadays, according to places like Google, Microsoft, and everyone that copies this (eg. Mozilla):
    version.version.xx = ???
    version.xx.version = ???
    xx.version.version = added features and bugfixes

    WTF...
    I agree. However it really does seem that every new kernel is not compatible with any previous versions. This is why we have to recompile modules for every minor version anyway ... Imagine if the same graphics drivers work for all kernel version within the same major branch. I think this problem is in fact costing the community a lot...

    Leave a comment:


  • Weasel
    replied
    Originally posted by linner View Post
    The kernel used to follow the traditional model.

    version.version.xx = bug updates
    version.xx.version = added features
    xx.version.version = major rewrites, fundamental architecture changes, etc.

    Nowadays, according to places like Google, Microsoft, and everyone that copies this (eg. Mozilla):
    version.version.xx = ???
    version.xx.version = ???
    xx.version.version = added features and bugfixes

    WTF...
    Fully agree with you.

    Guys, the kernel is 27 years old.

    Using the "current" scheme we'd probably have Linux 13 by now (say, one every 2 years). Even more otherwise. It's pathetic.

    Leave a comment:


  • linner
    replied
    The kernel used to follow the traditional model.

    version.version.xx = bug updates
    version.xx.version = added features
    xx.version.version = major rewrites, fundamental architecture changes, etc.

    Nowadays, according to places like Google, Microsoft, and everyone that copies this (eg. Mozilla):
    version.version.xx = ???
    version.xx.version = ???
    xx.version.version = added features and bugfixes

    WTF...

    Leave a comment:


  • L_A_G
    replied
    Originally posted by linner View Post
    I have to admit that the kernel versioning really bothers me. I mean judging based on features I would say the latest kernel would still be part of the 2.x series or maybe 3.x at most. Version 5? LOL, not even close. The Googlification/Microsoftification/gaming of versioning for everything is pissing me off. Why does everyone want to copy an evil company like Google?
    If you think version numbering that doesn't the magnitude of changes is something Google came up with, then oh boy have you not been playing much attention...

    Seriously thou, it's not like the Linux kernel devs can really do those huge version overhauls that companies who release a new version of their OS every few years at least used to do when you have multiple new versions every year. These days OS development in general is much more iterative so you just can't do big under-the-surface overhauls in one version like many Windows versions prior to 8 or MacOS and iOS prior to those moving to a yearly release schedule.

    Leave a comment:


  • re:fi.64
    replied
    Originally posted by linner View Post
    I have to admit that the kernel versioning really bothers me. I mean judging based on features I would say the latest kernel would still be part of the 2.x series or maybe 3.x at most. Version 5? LOL, not even close. The Googlification/Microsoftification/gaming of versioning for everything is pissing me off. Why does everyone want to copy an evil company like Google?
    Pretty sure Linux has done this for a really long time, by Torvalds own direction, as well as many places other than Google or MS.

    Leave a comment:


  • debianxfce
    replied
    Originally posted by linner View Post
    I have to admit that the kernel versioning really bothers me. I mean judging based on features I would say the latest kernel would still be part of the 2.x series or maybe 3.x at most. Version 5? LOL, not even close.
    There is many new features in the 5.0 kernel and phronix has summarized them. For example the Astrometa DVB-T2 usb stick with the Sony demodulator works with the 5.0 kernel.

    Leave a comment:


  • caligula
    replied
    Originally posted by Spam View Post
    Version numbers used to mean something. What's the point to increase major versions for the sake of nothing but the number itself?
    Not really obvious to me how you would decide when to update major or minor version when discussing such huge projects as the kernel. The size of code changes increases all the time as new kernel developers appear. How exactly would you measure such progress? Maybe provide some concrete examples from the Linux timeline? How would you re-version the past if you could?

    Leave a comment:


  • caligula
    replied
    Originally posted by linner View Post
    I have to admit that the kernel versioning really bothers me. I mean judging based on features I would say the latest kernel would still be part of the 2.x series or maybe 3.x at most. Version 5? LOL, not even close. The Googlification/Microsoftification/gaming of versioning for everything is pissing me off. Why does everyone want to copy an evil company like Google?
    So what would the 2 or 3 tell you? 2 is a rather small number. I think they officially released almost 500 2.x.y kernels. + all the vendor patching afterwards

    Leave a comment:


  • Spam
    replied
    Version numbers used to mean something. What's the point to increase major versions for the sake of nothing but the number itself?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X