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

Linux 4.0

git.kernel.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 85 posts

Re: Linux 4.0

#41

Post by zak_mc_kracken »

SquareWheel wrote: post #40
zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's funny, because the reason why Microsoft decided to skip from Windows 8 to Windows 10 is because there's too much software out there that tests that the version of Windows starts with "9" and interprets this as they are currently running Windows 95 or 98. Some things never change.

Highly improbable to be the case. Microsoft damaged XP compatibility with Vista; that they would care about software built for 95-98 in 2015 seems unlikely by comparison. It's also just a product name. Programmers will check the kernel version, not the "friendly" consumer-facing string. I realize this information has been circulated around, but unless this has been confirmed by Microsoft please don't claim facts with…

Interesting that you would call my claim "highly improbable" because I didn't cite any sources and in the same breath, make a claim without any sources.

"Unverified"? Sure. "Highly improbable"? You don't know that any better than I do.

Re: Linux 4.0

#42

Post by agumonkey »

zanny wrote: post #30
gesman wrote: post #11

Quite a Milestone!

The irony is that, like 3.0, this release does not actually do anything different from normal releases. Linux will never break backwards compatibility enough to justify a major version bump, so the major version is effectively meaningless.

Or maybe they'll pile up digits on higher positions. Linux 04.00, Linux 04.15; Linux 14.30 (new design).

Re: Linux 4.0

#43

Post by girvo »

SquareWheel wrote: post #40
zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's funny, because the reason why Microsoft decided to skip from Windows 8 to Windows 10 is because there's too much software out there that tests that the version of Windows starts with "9" and interprets this as they are currently running Windows 95 or 98. Some things never change.

Highly improbable to be the case. Microsoft damaged XP compatibility with Vista; that they would care about software built for 95-98 in 2015 seems unlikely by comparison. It's also just a product name. Programmers will check the kernel version, not the "friendly" consumer-facing string. I realize this information has been circulated around, but unless this has been confirmed by Microsoft please don't claim facts with…

> Programmers will check the kernel version, not the "friendly" consumer-facing string.

I wish that were true, and it may be if you're dealing with competent developers, but I've seen code that does exactly that in the wild!

Re: Linux 4.0

#44

Post by zak_mc_kracken »

SquareWheel wrote: post #40
zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's funny, because the reason why Microsoft decided to skip from Windows 8 to Windows 10 is because there's too much software out there that tests that the version of Windows starts with "9" and interprets this as they are currently running Windows 95 or 98. Some things never change.

Highly improbable to be the case. Microsoft damaged XP compatibility with Vista; that they would care about software built for 95-98 in 2015 seems unlikely by comparison. It's also just a product name. Programmers will check the kernel version, not the "friendly" consumer-facing string. I realize this information has been circulated around, but unless this has been confirmed by Microsoft please don't claim facts with…

> Programmers will check the kernel version, not the "friendly" consumer-facing string.

Cute. New to the profession?

Chew on this:

http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/new_windo...

Re: Linux 4.0

#46

Post by molteanu »

jjcm wrote: post #9

Windows Threshold OSX Yosemite Linux "Hurr durr I'ma sheep" ----- In some ways it's comforting that such an intergral part of all of our lives doesn't have to be branded and packaged in a way that's stylistic. It's nice knowing that this truly is a community project, and that it's an effort of people - not some megacorp who needs to market it to the highest amount of people possible. Great work everyone who worked on…

in sync with the stupid content tracker

Re: Linux 4.0

#47

Post by zer0rest »

comex wrote: post #22
oliyoung wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, you're comparing apples (ha!) and oranges… “Windows Threshold/XP/9/10”, “OS X Yosemite” are comparable to “Ubuntu“, not Linux. NT & -Darwin- [Edit: You're right LukeShu, XNU] are the Linux equivalents, they're the names of the kernels and not supposed to be consumer friendly.

Don't forget the distro version names! Ubuntu 14.10 'Utopic Unicorn', Debian 'jessie' (the Yodeling Cowgirl)...

Mascots apply.

Larry the Cow, El Pufiachi.

Re: Linux 4.0

#48

Post by SquareWheel »

zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #44
SquareWheel wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly improbable to be the case. Microsoft damaged XP compatibility with Vista; that they would care about software built for 95-98 in 2015 seems unlikely by comparison. It's also just a product name. Programmers will check the kernel version, not the "friendly" consumer-facing string. I realize this information has been circulated around, but unless this has been confirmed by Microsoft please don't claim facts with…

> Programmers will check the kernel version, not the "friendly" consumer-facing string. Cute. New to the profession? Chew on this: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/new_windo...

A deleted comment by somebody claiming to be a Microsoft developer, commenting on an "internal rumours". That's not what I would consider "evidence".

And there's no need to use the condescending "cute". I certainly wasn't trying to start a flame war here. I'm asking you to verify information before repeating it as fact.

Re: Linux 4.0

#49

Post by xai3luGi »

mricon wrote: post #34
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the bulk of it de facto comes from corporate contributors: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/infographics/who-w... (the Linux Foundation itself being a corporate consortium). Not that such a thing isn't practically inevitable for a project the scale of the Linux kernel.

Correction: The Linux Foundation is a 501(c)(6) non-profit consortium.

Aren't 501(c)(6) organisations called "trade associations"?

Re: Linux 4.0

#50

Post by szatkus »

itafroma wrote: post #26

For those confused about the codename, it's explained in this post by Linus: http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.g... > .. after extensive statistical analysis of my G+ polling, I've come to the inescapable conclusion that internet polls are bad. > Big surprise. > But "Hurr durr I'ma sheep" trounced "I like online polls" by a 62-to-38% margin, in a poll that people weren't even supposed to part…

I found that poll :)

https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/TvigQqA9m3w

Post reply on HN