Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

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

I didn't know you were quoting Linus, you should make it more obvious.

It's funny and upsetting how I get more upvotes for comments like these than for things I actually put some thought into.

I've noticed the same. Most of my posts that have been massively upvoted were suggestions or small corrections. The posts in which I take time to explain something non-trivial generally end up with 2-3 votes at most.

Amount of karma is not a measure of interestingness of the contribution, it's used mainly as an 'agree' button.

This is almost certainly caused by the decision to hide comment score. If people could see that this kind of comment (f.ex. a small correction) already had its fair share of upvotes they would leave it at that, but as it is now everybody who sees it upvotes it.

What's the difference? Are we running out of upvotes?

1. If, now or in the future, the HN comment-ordering algorithm pays attention to children's scores, then you get the following pathology: A says something slightly wrong, B makes a small correction, B's comment gets massively upvoted because everyone upvotes it, so that subthread gets treated as highly-scored even though there's nothing terribly insightful or interesting about it. (You could, but probably wouldn't, get the following even worse follow-on pathology: people start putting mistakes into their comments so that this will happen and they'll get extra visibility.)

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.

I've noticed no such change in my own comment scores with or without scores displayed. I think it's a problem intrinsic to comment voting systems. I see the same problem at all such websites I've frequented.

You've provided a valuable service and saved people time. The first question anyone will have about Kernel 3.0 is "What's new/different in it from 2.6.39?". By summarizing/quoting you let people skip skimming the article, or a Google search, and saved them time.

Not really. It's a sign of an unwelcome demographic change.

added the name :)

That's a start, but people only read that name after they've read the quote. Helpful conventions for quotes are:

"quotes" - Linus Torvalds

quotes - Linus Torvalds

I think you'll agree with me when I say that people only read the name after they've read the quote in your examples too.

When I see something in "quotes" or quotes, I usually look to the end to see the attribution before reading it.

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.

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

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.

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

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. :)

"Linux 3.0-rc1... except there are various scripts that really know that there are three numbers, so it calls itself "3.0.0-rc1".

Hopefully by the time the final 3.0 is out, we'll have that extra zero all figured out."

Source: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6...

Ultimately, you get the worst you're willing to put up with. When the Windows dev team bends over backwards to keep buggy applications working, they signal that those bugs are acceptable and turn them into the accepted way to develop Windows application software.

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.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact