7 ms·

Linux 4.0-rc1 out

254 points by akerl_ 12y ago

ajarmst 12y ago
"the people have spoken...most of it was complete gibberish" Linus has emitted the most elegant description of the Internet that I've ever seen.
- pshc 12y ago
  I have tears in my eyes.
Redoubts 12y ago
Interesting how this is the opposite of Knuth's converge-on-pi versioning system.
- frozenport 12y ago
  Guess Linux ain't perfect?
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    More like, "Every time Linux begins to converge on perfect, the outside world changes what 'perfect' means, and Linux has to evolve towards that, instead."
- meatmanek 12y ago
  I believe TeX is not adding new functionality now; only fixing bugs. Linux keeps getting more features all the time, so an asymptotic numbering scheme doesn't make as much sense.
tomphoolery 12y ago
Is there a specific reason that the Linux kernel team has given for not adopting semantic versioning? Or has the discussion just never been started?
- mcx 12y ago
  Probably because of this: So far, the arguments against it seem to have been "major numebr should go with a major new feature or breaking of compatibility", which just shows how little people know. We don't break compatibility, and we haven't done feature-based releases since basically forever.
- simplicio 12y ago
  Because Kernel changes should never break backwards compatibility, so that would mean the major version number would never change, making it worthless. And you'd end up with very large numbers for the minor numbers, which Linus seems to dislike.
- dietrichepp 12y ago
  "What version of Linux are you running?" "Uh, 2.something." "Well, that's a span of 15 years right there. 2.what?" "Uh, 2.6.something." "Okay, that's a start. That narrows it down to a span of 8 years, almost a factor of two in improvement." If they were to adopt semantic versioning, they'd NEVER bump the major version number in a hundred years. Think about this: when was the last time that changes to the Win32 API broke your application? Linux is also like that.
  - ekimekim 12y ago
    With this scenario in mind, could it make more sense to adopt a version scheme incorporating the initial release date (or considering the kernel workflow, merge window date), similar to ubuntu? "I'm running linux 15.2.4, aka. the 4th update to the kernel from Feb 2015"
  - lmm 12y ago
    Plenty of Linux changes have broken my system - removal of devfs, breaking of not only binary module compatibility but even source compatibility (e.g. I can't build my qc-usb webcam driver any more).
    - ciupicri 12y ago
kakakiki 12y ago
"On the other hand, the strongest argument for some people advocating 4.0 seems to have been a wish to see 4.1.15 - because "that was the version of Linux skynet used for the T-800 terminator"." Makes total sense :)
- RandomBK 12y ago
  I propose that the kernel version asymptotically approach 4.1.15 until all the features of skynet is supported by the kernel.
  - dijit 12y ago
    I think it's systemd, one day it becomes self aware.. and wants to run humanity. Much in the same manner as the AI in I, Robot.
  - pantalaimon 12y ago
    Nah, 4.1 will be a LTS release and embedded systems are notorious for using ancient kernels.
- bwldrbst 12y ago
  Looking forward to seeing the 6502 as a supported architecture in Linux 4.x!
  - laumars 12y ago
    For anyone unaware of the aforementioned reference, in the first Terminator movie, the code visible in the terminators HUD was 6502 assembly. Images and more reading: http://www.pagetable.com/?p=64 http://www.pagetable.com/?p=64
  - SolarNet 12y ago
    We got to add that for linux 4.1 someone get on that.
  - anon4 12y ago
    Nah, that's the CPU the Terminator used because it's the only design that can survive time travel. Skynet probably uses something a lot more modern. The Terminator himself runs his consciousness routines on bare metal.
nuxi7 12y ago
I already found version number breakage. The UNAME26 compatibility hack was missed. https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/23/6 https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/23/6
- riffraff 12y ago
  what is uname26, and what is the hack?
  - zerocrates 12y ago
    See the original commit for it [1]. Basically, some programs had issues working with Linux 3.x version numbers, so the kernel can lie to these and say that its version isn't, say, 3.0, but actually 2.6.40. This was implemented by just taking the kernel minor version number and adding 40 to it and tacking that on to "2.6." So, the problem here is that version 4.0 has that same code, so it's also going to fake-report its version as 2.6.40 when using the UNAME26 personality. [1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=be27425dcc516fd08245b047ea57f83b8f6f0903 http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.g...
    - filmor 12y ago
      Isn't that kind-of okay though? If a program now started to depend on 2.6.43 (or any other >= 40 version), isn't it seriously broken anyhow?
      - justincormack 12y ago
        A surprisingly large amount of code still works. If your code is statically linked the syscalls have not changed, due to Linux's backwards compatibility guarantees, and if it was dynamically linked against glibc the glibc compat may work, or you can just use the old glibc and linker. How much useful code there is that cant be recompiled I dont know, but I am sure people have some, and they probably dont want to run it in an old unsupported distro.
  - pilif 12y ago
mcdoug 12y ago
I remember last time the concern with going from 2.x to 3.x was that version parsers would break. Is that still a concern today?
Fuzzwah 12y ago
It has tricked the https://www.kernel.org/finger_banner https://www.kernel.org/finger_banner page: The latest mainline 3 version of the Linux kernel is: 4.0-rc1 The latest mainline 3 version of the Linux kernel is: 3.19 The latest stable 3.18 version of the Linux kernel is: 3.18.7 The latest longterm 3.14 version of the Linux kernel is: 3.14.33

254 points by akerl_ 12y ago

"the people have spoken...most of it was complete gibberish" Linus has emitted the most elegant description of the Internet that I've ever seen.

pshc 12y ago
I have tears in my eyes.

Redoubts 12y ago

Interesting how this is the opposite of Knuth's converge-on-pi versioning system.

frozenport 12y ago
Guess Linux ain't perfect?
- cbd1984 12y ago
  More like, "Every time Linux begins to converge on perfect, the outside world changes what 'perfect' means, and Linux has to evolve towards that, instead."
meatmanek 12y ago
I believe TeX is not adding new functionality now; only fixing bugs. Linux keeps getting more features all the time, so an asymptotic numbering scheme doesn't make as much sense.

tomphoolery 12y ago

Is there a specific reason that the Linux kernel team has given for not adopting semantic versioning? Or has the discussion just never been started?

mcx 12y ago
Probably because of this: So far, the arguments against it seem to have been "major numebr should go with a major new feature or breaking of compatibility", which just shows how little people know. We don't break compatibility, and we haven't done feature-based releases since basically forever.
simplicio 12y ago
Because Kernel changes should never break backwards compatibility, so that would mean the major version number would never change, making it worthless. And you'd end up with very large numbers for the minor numbers, which Linus seems to dislike.
dietrichepp 12y ago
"What version of Linux are you running?" "Uh, 2.something." "Well, that's a span of 15 years right there. 2.what?" "Uh, 2.6.something." "Okay, that's a start. That narrows it down to a span of 8 years, almost a factor of two in improvement." If they were to adopt semantic versioning, they'd NEVER bump the major version number in a hundred years. Think about this: when was the last time that changes to the Win32 API broke your application? Linux is also like that.
- ekimekim 12y ago
  With this scenario in mind, could it make more sense to adopt a version scheme incorporating the initial release date (or considering the kernel workflow, merge window date), similar to ubuntu? "I'm running linux 15.2.4, aka. the 4th update to the kernel from Feb 2015"
- lmm 12y ago
  Plenty of Linux changes have broken my system - removal of devfs, breaking of not only binary module compatibility but even source compatibility (e.g. I can't build my qc-usb webcam driver any more).
  - ciupicri 12y ago

kakakiki 12y ago

"On the other hand, the strongest argument for some people advocating 4.0 seems to have been a wish to see 4.1.15 - because "that was the version of Linux skynet used for the T-800 terminator"." Makes total sense :)

RandomBK 12y ago
I propose that the kernel version asymptotically approach 4.1.15 until all the features of skynet is supported by the kernel.
- dijit 12y ago
  I think it's systemd, one day it becomes self aware.. and wants to run humanity. Much in the same manner as the AI in I, Robot.
- pantalaimon 12y ago
  Nah, 4.1 will be a LTS release and embedded systems are notorious for using ancient kernels.
bwldrbst 12y ago
Looking forward to seeing the 6502 as a supported architecture in Linux 4.x!
- laumars 12y ago
  For anyone unaware of the aforementioned reference, in the first Terminator movie, the code visible in the terminators HUD was 6502 assembly. Images and more reading: http://www.pagetable.com/?p=64 http://www.pagetable.com/?p=64
- SolarNet 12y ago
  We got to add that for linux 4.1 someone get on that.
- anon4 12y ago
  Nah, that's the CPU the Terminator used because it's the only design that can survive time travel. Skynet probably uses something a lot more modern. The Terminator himself runs his consciousness routines on bare metal.

nuxi7 12y ago

I already found version number breakage. The UNAME26 compatibility hack was missed. https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/23/6 https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/23/6

riffraff 12y ago
what is uname26, and what is the hack?
- zerocrates 12y ago
  See the original commit for it [1]. Basically, some programs had issues working with Linux 3.x version numbers, so the kernel can lie to these and say that its version isn't, say, 3.0, but actually 2.6.40. This was implemented by just taking the kernel minor version number and adding 40 to it and tacking that on to "2.6." So, the problem here is that version 4.0 has that same code, so it's also going to fake-report its version as 2.6.40 when using the UNAME26 personality. [1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=be27425dcc516fd08245b047ea57f83b8f6f0903 http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.g...
  - filmor 12y ago
    Isn't that kind-of okay though? If a program now started to depend on 2.6.43 (or any other >= 40 version), isn't it seriously broken anyhow?
    - justincormack 12y ago
      A surprisingly large amount of code still works. If your code is statically linked the syscalls have not changed, due to Linux's backwards compatibility guarantees, and if it was dynamically linked against glibc the glibc compat may work, or you can just use the old glibc and linker. How much useful code there is that cant be recompiled I dont know, but I am sure people have some, and they probably dont want to run it in an old unsupported distro.
- pilif 12y ago

mcdoug 12y ago

I remember last time the concern with going from 2.x to 3.x was that version parsers would break. Is that still a concern today?

Fuzzwah 12y ago

It has tricked the https://www.kernel.org/finger_banner https://www.kernel.org/finger_banner page: The latest mainline 3 version of the Linux kernel is: 4.0-rc1 The latest mainline 3 version of the Linux kernel is: 3.19 The latest stable 3.18 version of the Linux kernel is: 3.18.7 The latest longterm 3.14 version of the Linux kernel is: 3.14.33