3 ms·

I like the evolutionary approach of the Linux kernel's development model means that version numbers are arbitrary labels: Anyway, regardless of all that, t

by nequo 4y ago

I like the evolutionary approach of the Linux kernel's development model means that version numbers are arbitrary labels: Anyway, regardless of all that, this obviously means that the merge window (*) will open tomorrow. [...] (*) I'll likely call it 6.0 since I'm starting to worry about getting confused by big numbers again. The new version of the Linux kernel is out and we can just get on with our lives.

sph 4y ago
I don't think there's anything good or insightful in Linus' approach to version numbers. I think he just doesn't care about it at all, and so why not have some fun. In my view version numbers either have a significance (semver & co.) or just get rid of it and use something derived from a date. Because why is it 5.19 then 6.0 and not sqrt(2) and tomorrow we try negative numbers? No software depends on a specific kernel version number, thankfully, so as a sysadmin I'd rather have Linux 2022.5.2 (year.sequential-number.patch) than 5.19. Possibly unpopular idea since I get bashed every time I criticize Linux and its versioning, as if I shouldn't dare question it.
- NullPrefix 4y ago
  Negative numbers would be hard to parse. Is Linux-5.19 version -5.19, the negative, or 5.19, the positive?
  - sph 4y ago
    The two minuses negate each other. Linux--5.19 == Linux+5.19
- heywoodlh 4y ago
  That's an interesting perspective. I am also a sysadmin and I sometimes care about the kernel I run (I run the Zen kernel on my XPS running Arch), but I also don't really find much value in the version number unless it has a feature I need/want. Like you, it wouldn't add or detract for me to know that a feature I want is in kernel 5.19 vs version 2022.5.2. Huh, although, the one question I'm not sure about would be LTS releases. For some reason -- in my head, at least -- it feels unorganized to mark a version based on date as an LTS. I guess Ubuntu does that and it doesn't bother me but for some reason I have a double standard with the kernel. Tangent: is there an official timeline where the decided support lifetime for the kernel versions are? Something like Ubuntu's lifecycle table[1]? I ask because there was one time I was gonna run 5.10 but wasn't sure when it was EOL because Greg K H was going to shorten it but then decided to extend it. [1] https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle
  - sph 4y ago
    Kernels in LTS releases are already weird. A RHEL kernel might have version 5.6 yet it's been released today with a ton of backports on top of a kernel that's years old.

by nequo 4y ago

sph 4y ago

I don't think there's anything good or insightful in Linus' approach to version numbers. I think he just doesn't care about it at all, and so why not have some fun. In my view version numbers either have a significance (semver & co.) or just get rid of it and use something derived from a date. Because why is it 5.19 then 6.0 and not sqrt(2) and tomorrow we try negative numbers? No software depends on a specific kernel version number, thankfully, so as a sysadmin I'd rather have Linux 2022.5.2 (year.sequential-number.patch) than 5.19. Possibly unpopular idea since I get bashed every time I criticize Linux and its versioning, as if I shouldn't dare question it.

NullPrefix 4y ago
Negative numbers would be hard to parse. Is Linux-5.19 version -5.19, the negative, or 5.19, the positive?
- sph 4y ago
  The two minuses negate each other. Linux--5.19 == Linux+5.19
heywoodlh 4y ago
That's an interesting perspective. I am also a sysadmin and I sometimes care about the kernel I run (I run the Zen kernel on my XPS running Arch), but I also don't really find much value in the version number unless it has a feature I need/want. Like you, it wouldn't add or detract for me to know that a feature I want is in kernel 5.19 vs version 2022.5.2. Huh, although, the one question I'm not sure about would be LTS releases. For some reason -- in my head, at least -- it feels unorganized to mark a version based on date as an LTS. I guess Ubuntu does that and it doesn't bother me but for some reason I have a double standard with the kernel. Tangent: is there an official timeline where the decided support lifetime for the kernel versions are? Something like Ubuntu's lifecycle table[1]? I ask because there was one time I was gonna run 5.10 but wasn't sure when it was EOL because Greg K H was going to shorten it but then decided to extend it. [1] https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle
- sph 4y ago
  Kernels in LTS releases are already weird. A RHEL kernel might have version 5.6 yet it's been released today with a ton of backports on top of a kernel that's years old.