Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

git.kernel.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#41

Post by fragsworth »

kia wrote: post #31
riobard wrote: post #7

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…

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.

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#42

Post by fragsworth »

haruka wrote: post #37

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 f…

You're saying there are tools which opt to break entirely, instead of work with the chance of bugs, if your kernel version number got too high?

What tools actually do this?

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#44

Post by 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

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#45

Post by adambyrtek »

kia wrote: post #31
riobard wrote: post #7

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…

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.

"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...

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#46

Post by rimantas »

perlgeek wrote: post #40
jordan0day wrote: post #18

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 im…

I don't think the 3.0 release is "just going all alpha-male" - I think it reflects the maturity of the linux kernel, and could have done some years ago with good conscience too. 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.

My first reaction to that talk was "wtf…". Then I tried git. And then I started to think that he might been right.

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#47

Post by ori_b »

haruka wrote: post #37

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 f…

In theory, the Linux kernel has been binary stable since version 1.0 -- if it worked on an old version, it will work on a new one.

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.

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#48

Post by w1ntermute »

jordan0day wrote: post #26
esrauch wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think linus is the second best hacker?

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.

No worries, the majority of people make that mistake.

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#49

Post by wladimir »

hasenj wrote: post #35
hasenj wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#50

Post by johnyzee »

wladimir wrote: post #49
hasenj wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.
Post reply on HN