linux-kernel - Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <487D9B58.7070609@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:55:20 -0300
From:	"Rafael C. de Almeida" <almeidaraf@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?

Rene Herman wrote:
> On 15-07-08 20:04, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
>> Clearly, the 2. prefix has long outlived its usefulness as far as
>> Linux is concerned, and probably the 6 as well.
> 
> Been calling the -stable branches v20, v21, v22, ... here.
> 
> I do believe the numbering scheme should at least ostensibly still be
> feature driven, not be a fully robotic date thing. With the latter, you
> definitely miss out on press-opportunities and that's not even meant
> cynical. There just is a bit of industry around Linux and the promotion
> opportunities of (say) "Linux 3" are really lots, lots bigger than
> anything boringly date based.

And that's why after the adoption of generics and a few things java all
the sudden became java 5. I don't like that. I hope the world gets used
to learning things instead of just being driven by a pretty number. And
I think that not using marketing numbers on a popular software is a good
step into helping people realise that version numbers are meant to keep
track of the changes not to look cool.

> That even holds for things like books -- I just bet that a "all new,
> covers Linux 3!" blurp on the cover sells lots more copies than a "all
> new, covers the march 21st 2009 version of Linux!" one.

I rather just have good books around. I can bet that all -- or at least
most of -- those new "LINUX 3!" books would suck. So it's better if they
sell little or not sell at all.

> But yes, the current monotic increase is definitely getting a bit boring
> as well. The kernel as of 2.6.26 is quite different from the kernel that
> was known as 2.6.0 so just be creative I'd say and set a 2.8 goal. Next
> version can be 2.9 (should be clear enough by then) and then watch world
> domination happen with the big 3.0 release.

Well, if 2.6.0 was 3.0 (2003.0) then people would easily realise that
they're missing 5 years of kernel development. Given that hint, if they
take a look on a few Changelogs they'll soon find out they're missing on
quite a lot.

> Linux 2010.5? Boooooooooring....

Well, it is software versioning and not Gisele Bündchen taking off her top.

> Rene.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/