[deleted]
Linus Torvalds' poll about “big versions” in kernel releases
51–60 of 70 posts
Re: Linus Torvalds' poll about “big versions” in kernel releases
#52Why has he chosen Google+ of all places to hold this vote? I wanted to vote, but no, can't do that without joining Google+ again, which I am emphatically against. Of all social media platforms to vote on, the only one more closed than Google+ would have been Facebook. Next time can we please use something like SurveyMonkey or Doodle (might not work for this) or ANYTHING but a f#$%ing social network that requires a lo…
"we" as in "he" was part of this community...
Stop being so pedantic, you already have a login, again, somebody like Linus Torvals that changed the world doesn't need to comply to your entitlements, in other words is his survey not yours.
Re: Linus Torvalds' poll about “big versions” in kernel releases
#53I never understand why linux distributions download updates so often. I'd prefer something monthly at the most. I can't believe there are so many critical security update that much often...
They don't as much if you use LTS, you might be used to regular releases, and to be honest Apple updates as frequent too.
Re: Linus Torvalds' poll about “big versions” in kernel releases
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen Linus loose it with devs in the past for breaking backwards compatibility with kernel updates; I'd suggest this also has something to do with it -possibly more so than an inbuilt fear of BSD [1]. I'm failing to find an explanation of how the RHEL numbering scheme is date based -please could you expand? [1] As a long term linux user, I have both fear and bafflement over BSD device naming and the lack of gnu…
The numbering scheme isn't date based, but the release schedule is. You can point at RHEL6.3 and say Released "2012-06-20"
Not entirely sure what you mean by release schedule. I found this[1] list which lists releases and dates, but (unless I'm being thick,) it's not like they're minor-bumping every x months, it seems to be arbitrary.
And if it's arbitrary, I don't see how it matters. If I'm looking up the release date for 6.3 then I may as well look up the release date for 2.6.32...
Re: Linus Torvalds' poll about “big versions” in kernel releases
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which BSD is doing date based releases?
OpenBSD and FreeBSD
OpenBSD releases every 6 months but does a #.# scheme incrementing the point number each release, so no date in the release number. FreeBSD has not been on a fixed schedule and doesn't use dates in their version numbers.
Re: Linus Torvalds' poll about “big versions” in kernel releases
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as we don't expect Linux to exist for another 85 years ;)
100.01 still works expect for alphabetical sorting. The worry happens at 985 years.
Numeric sorting can still work after 985 years. Only question is whether to use 1000.01 or 3000.01. I slightly prefer former, as a final rejection of the culture-specific BC/AC split. The ascendance of the net is the beginning of the real CE. Though skipping year notation altogether for seconds (or some 10s multiple of) since the epoch would also be fun for versioning.
Re: Linus Torvalds' poll about “big versions” in kernel releases
#57By his own admission, the first two numbers mean nothing. Kernel releases happen on a roughly regular schedule. Date-based versioning is clearly the correct answer and I don't know why it's never even discussed.
If you mean having something like "2015.01.13", it wouldn't look nice if stability-oriented distributions were forced to be seen as shipping "last year's kernel". It also looks stupid to patch a kernel you know is NN months old, even though you know it's the one you need to patch for reason XYZ. If you mean bumping the major release number every N years, then you'd have people complaining when a "major" release inevi…
> it wouldn't look nice if stability-oriented distributions were forced to be seen as shipping "last year's kernel". It also looks stupid to patch a kernel you know is NN months old, even though you know it's the one you need to patch for reason XYZ.
But stability-oriented distributions ARE shipping "last year's kernel", and people ARE patching a kernel that is NN months old (whether they know it or not).
Yes?
You are arguing that what people are actually doing should be kept less transparent, because if it were obvious what they were doing it would look bad?
While that might be what people want for marketting-related purposes, it kind of offends my sensibilities, it seems like lack of transparency here is not helpful for improvement to release practices, and I doubt Linus himself would like that argument very much.
Re: Linus Torvalds' poll about “big versions” in kernel releases
#58While this is not even kernel related, I'd like it to coincide with significant adoption of Wayland. It's more of a distro-level thing, but it is a major advance in the Linux world. So hold off on 4.0 until some desktops and distros are ready for that as a default.
I don't advocate having the tail deliberately wag the dog.
I agree, but people seem to want to tie the 4.0 bump to something kind of big.
Re: Linus Torvalds' poll about “big versions” in kernel releases
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
100.01 still works expect for alphabetical sorting. The worry happens at 985 years.
Numeric sorting can still work after 985 years. Only question is whether to use 1000.01 or 3000.01. I slightly prefer former, as a final rejection of the culture-specific BC/AC split. The ascendance of the net is the beginning of the real CE. Though skipping year notation altogether for seconds (or some 10s multiple of) since the epoch would also be fun for versioning.
> the culture-specific BC/AC split
Any dating scheme is going to be culture-specific. The point you pick to be "year zero" is always going to be a point in time that's culturally valuable.
> The ascendance of the net is the beginning of the real CE.
That's an assertion that a marker you find culturally important (as a techie) is more meaningful to you than a marker that other people find culturally significant.
You could just as well choose the Before Present dating scheme, which defines "present" as 1 January 1950, roughly the point in time when the number of atomic explosions made radiocarbon dating obsolete (and the beginning of an astronomical epoch). But that is also culturally-specific, relative to the concerns of a certain epistemic community.
Re: Linus Torvalds' poll about “big versions” in kernel releases
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
100.01 still works expect for alphabetical sorting. The worry happens at 985 years.
Numeric sorting can still work after 985 years. Only question is whether to use 1000.01 or 3000.01. I slightly prefer former, as a final rejection of the culture-specific BC/AC split. The ascendance of the net is the beginning of the real CE. Though skipping year notation altogether for seconds (or some 10s multiple of) since the epoch would also be fun for versioning.
[deleted]