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

  • #2
    Manual fix for amdgpu (resume from suspend and DP 1.2) is still needed. But developers said the fix should be in before final 5.0 release.

    Comment


    • #3
      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?

      Comment


      • #4
        Version numbers used to mean something. What's the point to increase major versions for the sake of nothing but the number itself?

        Comment


        • #5
          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

          Comment


          • #6
            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?

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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.
                "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."

                Comment


                • #9
                  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...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X