Linux 5.0-rc1 • Hacker News Board

Re: Linux 5.0-rc1

#51

Post by lostmsu » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 6:24 PM UTC

maxnoe wrote: post #43

lostmsu wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then again, how is the need to upstream drivers affecting small businesses doing hardware? Forget AMD, they might (arguably) find resources to do the clean-up. But mom, who learned a bit of programming to make a driver for Mom&Pop's Pool Acidity Sensor will never be able to upstream. So small business needs it even more. Don't you think that is a good reason on its own?

Then, is getting a driver upstreamed for linux really harder than getting it trusted/signed for Windows or macOS?

If you are mom&pop's, you can live with unsigned driver.

Anyway, you don't have to be a professional developer to sign it. Just buy a certificate, then it is just a couple of commands.

Re: Linux 5.0-rc1

#52

Post by lostmsu » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #50

lostmsu wrote: post #34

IMHO, Linux is failing us, end users. It works great for servers, I can give it that. There it mostly runs on a very narrow set of hardware, or just VMs. It is stable and performant, and customizable. But not on consumer devices. I'd like to use it eventually, but the state of driver support is still abysmal. Android phones lose support after a couple of years, and on desktop/laptops there are numerous problems too.…

Why should vendors care? Even Qualcomm outright admitted that they prefer to "ship it and drop it" rather than keep supporting old devices.

Have you replied to a wrong comment?

Re: Linux 5.0-rc1

#53

Post by zapzupnz » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 9:22 PM UTC

sys_64738 wrote: post #48

zapzupnz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really a 'dilemma' though? Basically, a project can set the version numbers how they want. They don't need to justify the change. So long as they and others can refer to each release by a simple and easily identifiable number or moniker, it really makes no difference if it's 5.0 or 4.22. In the end, the Linux kernel is such a big project that there's really no reason to single out any single or a set of changes…

Versioning isn't just about the practical software build. The version is used to describe differences to non-tech PMs. A PM's eyes will glaze over when you talk 4.22 V 4.16, but you mention v22 versus v22 and then they 'get it'. That's why a Chrome style versioning has value.

It has value to certain people, sure. But given that it's mainly technically minded people who work with the kernel on a daily basis, and most people don't need to know their kernel version number outside of limited circumstances.

I would say for the majority of Linux users, it's the OS version that's more important; that is, getting help with your installation of Ubuntu, it's more useful to know that you're running 18.10 rather than kernel version 4.18.

Yes, Chrome-style versioning has value. But is that value applicable to this scenario? I wouldn't say 'no', but I'm fairly comfortable saying "not necessarily". Nothing is universal, and no one solution solves every problem.