
Linux 3.0-rc1 is here - angusgr
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=summary
======
riobard
For 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

~~~
kia
It would break many of the programs which rely on 2.6.x naming scheme. Linus
always was on the side of not breaking things if they do work. It seems that
he changed his views for this particular case.

~~~
fragsworth
He's also a huge proponent of "Don't be stupid". I think that applies to
developers who did what you mentioned.

~~~
angusgr
I don't know if that's fair. I mean, if you have a program that needs to parse
out the Linux kernel version then you could very plausibly have assumed the
format vX.X.X[-something|.X], given it's been that way consistently for 15
years (since 2.1.0 in '96). Even the kernel's own scripts do that, as Linus
mentions in the email. Now it's going to have format vX.X for the first time
since 2.0.

I can't actually think of the use case for needing to parse the complete
version string outside the kernel, but it doesn't sound stupid to me that
you'd assume a canonical format that's been there for a decade and a half.
Apparently wrong, and decidedly unimportant & bikesheddy, but not necessarily
stupid.

~~~
mikemaccana
Kia specifically mentioned '2.6.x' naming. Obviously expecting three parts is
AOK, expecting the kernel to remain at 2.6 forever is not.

~~~
angusgr
Well he said the '2.6.x naming _scheme_ ', which I took to mean the 3 part
versioning scheme (as used in 2.6 kernel versions.)

I agree with you that assuming the kernel would always be 2.6.x is not OK, I'd
just assumed noone would be that shortsighted and stupid. :)

------
timf
Linus' email is more interesting than the commit:
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1147415>

~~~
armored
Although that's not very interesting either. Linus: "What's new?" Linus:
"Nothing."

~~~
thaumaturgy
Yeah, 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.

~~~
j2d2j2d2
It 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
Yeah, 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.

~~~
kronusaturn
Linux has kept its main public interfaces stable for all of its several
hundred post-1.0 releases, so using that scheme would mean Linux would have to
use rather odd-looking version numbers like 1.632.5

------
tzury
Despite 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
> 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.

~~~
tzury
Friend, I am afraid you have missed my point. What I meant was that open
source have change the software world. Nothing is the same anymore, and in my
opinion, the "cloud-revolution" we are observing today has a lot to do with
open/free software.

It might be true that most browsers are closed source running on top of closed
source operating systems, but that is just one half of the picture. the other
half tells a story of most web traffic, especially on most popular ones, is
generated by open platform.

Vast majority of programmers are writing closed source. yet they do not affect
the market as those who write open source.

~~~
forensic
The EFF disagrees with you about the cloud. They believe the cloud is a
serious loss of freedom, partially because cloud-code is hidden (even modified
GPL code) and partially because people are giving away their privacy.

The cloud has been great for the business of writing software, but not because
it is more free or open.

------
jordan0day
One 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...".

~~~
esrauch
You think linus is the second best hacker?

~~~
jordan0day
It appears my understanding of that word was faulty. I always thought it meant
something along the lines of first-rate, I didn't realize it had such a
specific meaning. TIL, I suppose.

~~~
w1ntermute
No worries, the majority of people make that mistake.

------
lpgauth
"Version numbers? We can increment them!"

[http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6...](http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v3.0-rc1)

------
tybris

      -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
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_kernel_names>

Some interesting version names in there. I find 2.6.22-rc3 particularly
intruiging...

------
icco
My favorite part is the commit message on the tag:
[http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6...](http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=tag;h=2a23a510142a1ab597f0214e4fadb3c7350bbb8d)

"Version numbers? We can increment them!" -- Linus Torvalds

------
jsaxton86
A summary of the changes can be found here:
<https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/29/204>

------
BruceForth
So, when will Linus be released from mental institution? [0]

<http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/2/247>

------
autalpha
I don't know why, but I always get a good chuckle or two from reading or
watching Linus' materials.

------
FlowerPower
Its name was Sneaky Weasel.

------
kbd
Wow, he said he might go to 2.8. This is madness.

~~~
frgtn
No, this is Linux!

------
uabbasi
Down?

------
blackhole
<http://www.xkcd.com/178/>

------
haruka
Seems 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
checking 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.

------
aclark
I know they invented git, but that website sure is fugly. Time to switch to
github, perhaps :-).

~~~
marchdown
There is a nice open-source (which github is not) web front-end for git repos,
<http://www.gitalist.com/>, and would you believe it, even they use git-web on
their website.

~~~
augustl
Unfortunately, <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
Well, 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
I didn't disable JavaScript for security reasons, but for faster web pages on
my slow EEE laptop.

