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

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#51

Post by 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!

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#52

Post by vicaya »

augustl wrote: post #38
marchdown wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#53

Post by angusgr »

fragsworth wrote: post #41
kia wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#54

Post by jedbrown »

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…

Lots of commercial software has version numbers assigned for marketing reasons and largely independent of technical changes.

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#55

Post by mikemaccana »

angusgr wrote: post #53
fragsworth wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#57

Post by gaius »

bryansum wrote: post #24
esrauch wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think linus is the second best hacker?

pe·nul·ti·mate/peˈnəltəmit/ Adjective: Last but one in a series of things; second last: "the penultimate chapter of the book".

To quote Murray Walker, an F1 commentator, "they're on the penultimate second from last lap but one!"

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#58

Post by angusgr »

mikemaccana wrote: post #55
angusgr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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. :)

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#59

Post by dchest »

johnyzee wrote: post #50
wladimir wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Re: Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

#60

Post by gjm11 »

dchest wrote: post #59
johnyzee wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post reply on HN