Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Farewell To The Linux 2.6 Kernel?

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic Farewell To The Linux 2.6 Kernel?

    Farewell To The Linux 2.6 Kernel?

    Phoronix: Farewell To The Linux 2.6 Kernel?

    Version 2.6 of the Linux kernel was released in late 2003 and since then the developers have stuck with the 2.6.x.y version numbering. It's been five years with the stable Linux 2.6 kernel, but a proposal has been made on the Linux kernel mailing list to change this scheme...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=Njc5MQ

  • deanjo
    replied
    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 Well, it's like "14 versions old", which give a rough idea of "outdated", but if this is how versions are compared one could just as well drop the "2.6" and call it "Linux 27", "Linux 28", ...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?

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • khaije1
    replied
    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, 12:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SavageX
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seba
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3vi1
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

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

    Leave a comment:


  • 3vi1
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • 3vi1
    replied
    Originally posted by Sinner View Post
    ... UTM would make it just at tad more confusing :-P

    /Sinner
    Okay, I'm for it then.

    Leave a comment:


  • aaaantoine
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X