

Linus Renames 2.6.40 Kernel To Linux 3.0, Announces Release Candidate - achyuta
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTUwMg

======
kylemaxwell
Man, this takes me back to 1998 when I first started seriously dabbling in
Linux and the ability to compile your own kernel was the mark of a serious
user. Now I cnsider myself much more serious and knowledgeable about Linux and
UNIX in general, but I haven't needed or wanted to compile a Linux kernel in
years, and only recently did so in OpenBSD for the first time since somewhen
around 2004.

I'm not sure what that says about the progress of the platform, but I tend to
think that it's a positive sign when anyone still /can/ but almost nobody
outside developers even /needs/ to do so.

~~~
Tiomaidh
When I first started out with Linux, I thought "Man! Some people compile their
own kernel! Wow! And then some build their system from the ground up! Some
summer, I hope to be able to do Linux From Scratch. That would be so varsity."

Now I think, "They want to compile their own kernel? Fine. I can go from
nothing except the internet and a CD burner to a fully configured system in
<90 minutes. Then do you know what I can do? Programming. Web browsing. Work."

If the platform gets out of your way and just lets you do what needs to be
done...then excellent. Excellent.

~~~
wladimir
I don't even have a CD burner hooked up anymore. When I install Linux these
days I do it either directly from the network or with an USB stick. Yeah it's
really easy nowadays.

Compiling the kernel yourself is really only useful for embedded devices and
if you have hardware not supported by the stock one. Or if you are a kernel
developer, of course.

------
kl4m
earlier discussion <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2598100>

------
drdaeman
Obviously, Linus may (and will) do whatever he wants.

But personally, I believe this is pointless, because this removes almost all
of semantics from version numbers. The only thing's left is ordering, i.e. 3.0
is newer than 2.6.x.

------
unshift
i wonder why they don't just go to a date based approach. 2.2 and 2.4 were
different, 2.4 and 2.6 were different, but within the minor 2.6 versions
they've made some (what i would consider) pretty big changes without bumping
the version number accordingly.

they seem to have abandoned odds/evens branch structure in favor of something
a little more continuous, which is great, i just wonder why they don't ditch
the old numbering scheme as well.

