6 ms·
Linux 3.0-rc1 is here
- uabbasi 15y agoDown?
- jsaxton86 15y agoA summary of the changes can be found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/29/204 https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/29/204
- lpgauth 15y ago"Version numbers? We can increment them!" http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v3.0-rc1 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6...
- kbd 15y agoWow, he said he might go to 2.8. This is madness.
- frgtn 15y agoNo, this is Linux!
- riobard 15y agoFor those wondering what's new: “So what are the big changes? NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. Sure, we have the usual two thirds driver changes, and a lot of random fixes, but the point is that 3.0 is just about renumbering, we are very much not doing a KDE-4 or a Gnome-3 here. No breakage, no special scary new features, nothing at all like that. We've been doing time-based releases for many years now, this is in no way about features. If you want an excuse for the renumbering, you really should look at the time-based one ("20 years") instead.” by Linus Torvalds source: ttp://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1147415
- spicyj 15y agoSource: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1147415 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1147415
- hasenj 15y agoI didn't know you were quoting Linus, you should make it more obvious.
- riobard 15y agoadded the name :)
- BasDirks 15y agoThat's a start, but people only read that name after they've read the quote. Helpful conventions for quotes are: "quotes" - Linus Torvalds quotes - Linus Torvalds
- fredoliveira 15y agoI think you'll agree with me when I say that people only read the name after they've read the quote in your examples too.
- AntiRush 15y agoWhen I see something in "quotes" or quotes, I usually look to the end to see the attribution before reading it.
- hasenj 15y agoIt's funny and upsetting how I get more upvotes for comments like these than for things I actually put some thought into.
- wladimir 15y ago
- timf 15y agoLinus' email is more interesting than the commit: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1147415 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1147415
- armored 15y agoAlthough that's not very interesting either. Linus: "What's new?" Linus: "Nothing."
- thaumaturgy 15y agoYeah, nice. "Major version? Minor version? Revision? What're those? I like round numbers." Why not just go to a basic increment (Linux 3, 4, 5, 6, ...), or a date-based (Linux 2011! Now with new ribbon interface!) numbering instead? ...eh. I dunno why this bothers me so much.
- Dylan16807 15y agoIsn't the point of this to start correctly using the minor version numbers again, to get back to a good versioning system? And since it's a different scheme it makes a lot of sense to increment the major version to separate it.
- j2d2j2d2 15y agoIt shouldn't. Open source version numbers greater than 1.0 dont mean a whole lot. Chrome, the browser, around version 8 (give or take). How much sense does that make?
- thaumaturgy 15y agoYeah, I know. At one time though, version numbering was used as a signal to other developers that relied on your software. Changing the major version number indicated a large change -- either API, or architectural, or both -- that was expected to break software that relied on it. So then, as an end-user, it was easy to keep track of which pieces were likely to be compatible with which other pieces; if your add-on or what-have-you worked with version 2.1, then it would work with 2.1.1, and probably work with 2.2, but probably not work with 3.0. I guess people got bored with the sensibility of that, or something.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- aclark 15y agoI know they invented git, but that website sure is fugly. Time to switch to github, perhaps :-).
- marchdown 15y agoThere is a nice open-source (which github is not) web front-end for git repos, http://www.gitalist.com/ http://www.gitalist.com/, and would you believe it, even they use git-web on their website.
- augustl 15y agoUnfortunately, http://example.gitalist.com/ http://example.gitalist.com/ doesn't load any content whatsoever in my browser (Google Chrome with JavaScript disabled/whitelisted). Just a white page. And I have a hunch browsing with JavaScript off is more common for kernel devs than, say, GitHub users.
- vicaya 15y agoWell, Chrome must be broken then, as it's a validated HTML 5 page. It works with FF with noscript (with the domain blocked). Frankly, I have a hunch that people who care about javascript security don't use Chrome. No chrome until noscript.
- augustl 15y agoI didn't disable JavaScript for security reasons, but for faster web pages on my slow EEE laptop.
- sliverstorm 15y agoIt may be fugly, but it's also functional It probably works in text based browsers too
- stephen_g 15y agoWhy do you care what it looks like? It's whether it works well that is really important for a tool like this (that pretty much only the devs are going to use). It's not actually great on that front either though, but the point still stands. I prefer cgit[1] myself (as it's a lot more usable). It's quite mature and used by Freedesktop [2] and Gnome [3]. If people are really worried by how it looks you can easily add your own header, footer, and alter the CSS. I hadn't seen Gitalist (that marchdown posted) though. Looks pretty good but I wasn't that impressed by the usability of the demo though. But that will probably improve in time. 1. http://hjemli.net/git/cgit/ http://hjemli.net/git/cgit/ 2. http://cgit.freedesktop.org/ http://cgit.freedesktop.org/ 3. http://git.gnome.org/browse/ http://git.gnome.org/browse/
- jordan0day 15y agoOne the one hand, the "benevolent dictator" model has shown itself to work pretty well for Linux, compared to some major failings of the "committee" model on other projects. On the other hand, does anyone think the fact that "major" changes can be done by one person who is "just going all alpha-male" will potentially spook people? I mean, I doubt too many people here on hn have a problem with Linus' personality. I imagine most of us appreciate his sense of humor and respect him as a penultimate hacker... I'm just thinking about starched-shirt types who call the shots in big businesses -- can you imagine being an IT manager and trying to explain to your boss that after 15 years there's a new major version of the Linux kernel because "well the head guy got tired of calling it version 2." Edit: Penultimate apparently doesn't mean what I thought it meant, so, what I meant was "...respect him as a very good hacker...".
- sliverstorm 15y agoIt's free, it's open source. If you've got a problem with how Linus does things, you can always fork it.
- steevdave 15y agoI'm not entirely sure why you would... My boss doesn't know what kernel version we run, all he cares is that it works.
- esrauch 15y agoYou think linus is the second best hacker?
- autalpha 15y agoI don't know why, but I always get a good chuckle or two from reading or watching Linus' materials.
- blackhole 15y agohttp://www.xkcd.com/178/ http://www.xkcd.com/178/
- icco 15y agoMy favorite part is the commit message on the tag: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=tag;h=2a23a510142a1ab597f0214e4fadb3c7350bbb8d http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6... "Version numbers? We can increment them!" -- Linus Torvalds
- FlowerPower 15y agoIts name was Sneaky Weasel.
- haruka 15y agoSeems a bit strange to me. A major version increment is supposed to announce "this is significantly different and possibly incompatible". But now it doesn't mean that. It means 20 years. There are extremely good reasons not to increment the major version. For instance tools which take the conservative approach of checking for 2.6 will all be broken. Those tools correctly elected not to risk wrong behavior resulting from a major version change. When you add together the time it takes to compensate for this change for all maintainers everywhere (tools developers, distro developers, everyone), surely it will run into the hundreds of hours, perhaps thousands. All for, functionally, nothing. And sorry for calling you Shirley. Seems to be an objectively bad move. Oh well. This needless-on-purpose change will cause resentment, but after time it will dissipate.
- taken11 15y agochecking for 2.6 no longer means much, 2.6.0 and a current 2.6.39 have so many changes that just checking for 2.6 is not enough anymore. that was one of the reasons for the new version.
- fragsworth 15y agoYou're saying there are tools which opt to break entirely, instead of work with the chance of bugs, if your kernel version number got too high? What tools actually do this?
- ori_b 15y agoIn theory, the Linux kernel has been binary stable since version 1.0 -- if it worked on an old version, it will work on a new one. In practice, due to the vast number of configuration options, it's not entirely binary stable even across different people compiling the same code. With work, you can probably make things compatible, but it doesn't come for free.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- tybris 15y ago-VERSION = 2 -PATCHLEVEL = 6 -SUBLEVEL = 39 -EXTRAVERSION = -NAME = Flesh-Eating Bats with Fangs +VERSION = 3 +PATCHLEVEL = 0 +SUBLEVEL = 0 +EXTRAVERSION = -rc1 +NAME = Sneaky Weasel
- vacri 15y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_kernel_names http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_kernel_names Some interesting version names in there. I find 2.6.22-rc3 particularly intruiging...
- tzury 15y agoDespite all criticism and cynicism all over the Linux communities about the numbering and all that stuff, for me, every release of the Kernel (as well as any other major / dominant open source platform / project) is a reason for celebration. It simply means, openness and freedom won the software/internet game. The fact there are people out there, spend the best of their times, contributing code and manuals docs, debugging and filing bugs, etc. etc. Is a sign that RMS and alike were not _"a bunch of hippies who likes to code for free"_ or even worst, a bunch of communists as some used to say at the beginning of Linux breakthrough. From my own personal experience, it also means, the more open you will be, the more open software you will rely on, the more money you will make by the end of the day. Thank you Linus, and all kernel contributors, for the great tools and platform you provided us for FREE!
- forensic 15y ago> It simply means, openness and freedom won the software/internet game. Except... it didn't. The far majority of programmers still write closed source non-free code. The far majority of software is still closed source and non-free. The far majority of humans browse non-free websites on non-free web browsers running on non-free operating systems.
- arecibodrake 15y agoOh, I don't think he was saying that wasn't the case. I believe what he meant (perhaps I am projecting here) that because it continues to exist, and exist successfully, the idea of free software wins. The mere continued existence of free software/open source validates the ideology behind it. As a libertarian/dyed in the wool capitalist, I love the success myself.
- forensic 15y agoI don't see how existence equates to winning. A winner implies a loser. I doubt RMS considers the status quo a success. The free software movement that I know had a much loftier concept of "win" than mere existence.
- BruceForth 15y agoSo, when will Linus be released from mental institution? [0] http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/2/247 http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/2/247