Linus Renames 2.6.40 Kernel To Linux 3.0, Announces Release Candidate | Hacker News Reader

Linus Renames 2.6.40 Kernel To Linux 3.0, Announces Release Candidate

phoronix.com

30 pointsachyuta6 comments

Man, this takes me back to 1998 when I first started seriously dabbling in Linux and the ability to compile your own kernel was the mark of a serious user. Now I cnsider myself much more serious and knowledgeable about Linux and UNIX in general, but I haven't needed or wanted to compile a Linux kernel in years, and only recently did so in OpenBSD for the first time since somewhen around 2004.

I'm not sure what that says about the progress of the platform, but I tend to think that it's a positive sign when anyone still /can/ but almost nobody outside developers even /needs/ to do so.

When I first started out with Linux, I thought "Man! Some people compile their own kernel! Wow! And then some build their system from the ground up! Some summer, I hope to be able to do Linux From Scratch. That would be so varsity."

Now I think, "They want to compile their own kernel? Fine. I can go from nothing except the internet and a CD burner to a fully configured system in <90 minutes. Then do you know what I can do? Programming. Web browsing. Work."

If the platform gets out of your way and just lets you do what needs to be done...then excellent. Excellent.

I don't even have a CD burner hooked up anymore. When I install Linux these days I do it either directly from the network or with an USB stick. Yeah it's really easy nowadays.

Compiling the kernel yourself is really only useful for embedded devices and if you have hardware not supported by the stock one. Or if you are a kernel developer, of course.

earlier discussion http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2598100

Obviously, Linus may (and will) do whatever he wants.

But personally, I believe this is pointless, because this removes almost all of semantics from version numbers. The only thing's left is ordering, i.e. 3.0 is newer than 2.6.x.

i wonder why they don't just go to a date based approach. 2.2 and 2.4 were different, 2.4 and 2.6 were different, but within the minor 2.6 versions they've made some (what i would consider) pretty big changes without bumping the version number accordingly.

they seem to have abandoned odds/evens branch structure in favor of something a little more continuous, which is great, i just wonder why they don't ditch the old numbering scheme as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com