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

71–80 of 85 posts

Re: Linux 4.0

#71

Post by nirvdrum »

zanny wrote: post #29
zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #24

4.0? Why would anyone use an OS that's six versions behind Windows?

I wouldn't be surprised if Linus pushes for 5.0 after 4.9 this time. And then maybe after that you realize the major version number is meaningless when you will never break backwards compatibility (like with web browsers) and drop it entirely. So maybe Linux 30 by 2020?

Web browsers break backwards-compatibility all the time. They use the major version number bump to justify it. I gave up trying to keep a Firefox extension I wrote up-to-date since the API changed every 6 weeks. I think it's settled down a bit since the early days, but the reason they bump the major version number is so they can break things.

Re: Linux 4.0

#72

Post by vdaniuk »

coldpie wrote: post #67
gabeio wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fedora recently ditched naming the versions themselves the community can name if it they wish. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/201...

> Fedora recently ditched naming the versions Thank fucking God. I loathe version names. Place these in release date order: Lion, Snow Leopard, and Tiger. Now, place these in release order: 10.6, 10.7, and 10.8. Which do you find communicated more useful information?

Dude, version name is a great vessel for branding and promotion. Most distros have version names and version numbers, it's not hard to dereference a version name and they serve a purpose.

More brand awareness for open source projects == good.

Re: Linux 4.0

#73

Post by tsm »

coldpie wrote: post #67
gabeio wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fedora recently ditched naming the versions themselves the community can name if it they wish. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/201...

> Fedora recently ditched naming the versions Thank fucking God. I loathe version names. Place these in release date order: Lion, Snow Leopard, and Tiger. Now, place these in release order: 10.6, 10.7, and 10.8. Which do you find communicated more useful information?

Why not have both?

I find Intrepid Ibex, Gutsy Gibbon, Feisty Fawn, Hardy Heron, etc. to be quite sortable.

Re: Linux 4.0

#74

Post by dchest »

tsm wrote: post #73
coldpie wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fedora recently ditched naming the versions Thank fucking God. I loathe version names. Place these in release date order: Lion, Snow Leopard, and Tiger. Now, place these in release order: 10.6, 10.7, and 10.8. Which do you find communicated more useful information?

Why not have both? I find Intrepid Ibex, Gutsy Gibbon, Feisty Fawn, Hardy Heron, etc. to be quite sortable.

I always forget which Ubuntu name I'm using, even though I remember the number :-/

Re: Linux 4.0

#75

Post by anocendi »

zanny wrote: post #28
comex wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Fedora 17: Beefy Miracle always leaves a warm feeling in my heart.

And then at Twenty-one, they ran out of good ideas ....

Re: Linux 4.0

#76

Post by mcguire »

bobbles wrote: post #23
idbentley wrote: post #14

I don't understand the joke in calling it that. It just seems petty. Is there something I'm missing?

I'm definitely missing something coz I've never used this site before and have no idea how to even see what everyone is so angry about

"...what everyone is so angry about"

It's Monday.

Re: Linux 4.0

#77

Post by mcguire »

vacri wrote: post #33
idbentley wrote: post #14

I don't understand the joke in calling it that. It just seems petty. Is there something I'm missing?

The linux kernel names are not meant for marketing; they're in-house only. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_kernel_names

Ok, who's the joker who went through and linked all the animal names, etc.?

Re: Linux 4.0

#78

Post by idbentley »

vacri wrote: post #33
idbentley wrote: post #14

I don't understand the joke in calling it that. It just seems petty. Is there something I'm missing?

The linux kernel names are not meant for marketing; they're in-house only. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_kernel_names

This is the answer I was looking for. Funny, I've been a long time linux user, and never knew about these internal names.

It does seem like a slight against our Ubuntu, Debain, Mac OS, Windows et al. comrades.

Without any context, "Hurr, durr, I'm a sheep" seems rude to users and administrators of every OS distribution. With this context, it seems like maybe not a very funny addition to a long running joke.

Re: Linux 4.0

#79

Post by zanny »

nirvdrum wrote: post #71
zanny wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be surprised if Linus pushes for 5.0 after 4.9 this time. And then maybe after that you realize the major version number is meaningless when you will never break backwards compatibility (like with web browsers) and drop it entirely. So maybe Linux 30 by 2020?

Web browsers break backwards-compatibility all the time. They use the major version number bump to justify it. I gave up trying to keep a Firefox extension I wrote up-to-date since the API changed every 6 weeks. I think it's settled down a bit since the early days, but the reason they bump the major version number is so they can break things.

I meant more in terms of they don't break the standards they implement, they just add more on, but yeah mechanically its a misnomer.

Re: Linux 4.0

#80

Post by asynchronous13 »

kjs3 wrote: post #62
SquareWheel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wait...your posit something as fact because it's "been circled around", but his pointing to an actual link doesn't rise to your level of "evidence"? Cute.

At the risk of feeding a troll, re-read SquareWheel's comment because I don't think that your criticism applies at all.
Post reply on HN