“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")
by Linus Torvalds
Amount of karma is not a measure of interestingness of the contribution, it's used mainly as an 'agree' button.
2. People get more karma for posting minor corrections than for posting substantive comments. That's arguably unfair, and again it has a possible follow-on pathology: making nitpicking more popular and carefully thought-out insightful comments less popular.
"quotes" - Linus Torvalds
quotes - Linus Torvalds
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.
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. :)
Hopefully by the time the final 3.0 is out, we'll have that extra zero all figured out."
When Torvalds bumps the major version number with little warning, he signals that anything which depends on it always being '2.x.x' or, worse, '2.6.x', is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.
I've lived in both worlds. I prefer Linux. I'm not alone.
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.
Chrome, the browser, around version 8 (give or take). How much sense does that make?
I guess people got bored with the sensibility of that, or something.
I was wrong when I said 8.
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!
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.
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.
The cloud has been great for the business of writing software, but not because it is more free or open.
The mere continued existence of free software/open source validates the ideology behind it.
As a libertarian/dyed in the wool capitalist, I love the success myself.
I doubt RMS considers the status quo a success. The free software movement that I know had a much loftier concept of "win" than mere existence.
I mean, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S76pHIYx3ik.
Edit: Penultimate apparently doesn't mean what I thought it meant, so, what I meant was "...respect him as a very good hacker...".
Adjective: Last but one in a series of things; second last: "the penultimate chapter of the book".
That said, his Google Tech Talk on git, which turned into a rant against SVN/CVS users did lower my respect for his personal skills.
-VERSION = 2
-PATCHLEVEL = 6
-SUBLEVEL = 39
-NAME = Flesh-Eating Bats with Fangs
+VERSION = 3
+PATCHLEVEL = 0
+SUBLEVEL = 0
+EXTRAVERSION = -rc1
+NAME = Sneaky Weasel
Some interesting version names in there. I find 2.6.22-rc3 particularly intruiging...
"Version numbers? We can increment them!" -- Linus Torvalds
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.
What tools actually do this?
In practice, due to the vast number of configuration options, it's not entirely binary stable even across different people compiling the same code. With work, you can probably make things compatible, but it doesn't come for free.
It's not actually great on that front either though, but the point still stands. I prefer cgit myself (as it's a lot more usable). It's quite mature and used by Freedesktop  and Gnome . If people are really worried by how it looks you can easily add your own header, footer, and alter the CSS.
I hadn't seen Gitalist (that marchdown posted) though. Looks pretty good but I wasn't that impressed by the usability of the demo though. But that will probably improve in time.
No chrome until noscript.
It probably works in text based browsers too