Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Great debate: Linux by the numbers

  1. #1
    Mentor
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,672

    Great debate: Linux by the numbers

    Linus Torvalds and other central Linux programmers are debating whether the next version of the operating system should be numbered 2.6, or if its new features merit the grander designation 3.0.

    http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-960573.html

  2. #2
    Moderator
    Kind Mastermind
    stryder144's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    2,926

    Re:Great debate: Linux by the numbers

    Interesting article. It high lights some problems, in my eyes.

    1. Numbering convensions...people place too much emphasis on what version number they have, then complain because it is not what they felt it should be. It's stupid. Why do people feel that they need 3.x.x? Do the 2.6.x thing. Then the 2.8.x. Then, when we have reached that point, we can hop up to 3.x.x. People want a standard method of naming the kernel version. They understand that x.oddnumber.x means that it is a development version. They understand that x.evennumber.x is a (generally) stable version. What the average pc user doesn't understand is when a software company or project jumps from, say, 2.2 to say, 2.6 without there being a 2.4 (or whatever, you get the idea). It's not intuitive enough. That can, strangely enough, turn people off. We don't want that.

    2. Due to the increased focus on Linux in the media, we are seeing a lot of less than stellar press. People don't need to know that there is a debate amongst the programmers regarding something so silly as versioning schemes. It's rediculous. This debate, minor as it is, can and probably will have a negative effect. Joe Bag-O-Donuts wants to know that everything is peachy-keen. If Sun is having money problems, Joe won't buy a server since he will fear that Sun can't support him in the future. Same thing here. If there is negative press, then it sullies the reputation of Linux in general.

    I hate seeing such silliness. It makes me mad. I guess I am just jealous about Linux. I want Linux to be the true golden child of the computing world. I want it to be the great messiah. I fear that such petty differences will turn others off to my little "religious" experience. Nuff said.

    Cheers

  3. #3

    Re:Great debate: Linux by the numbers

    [quote author=stryder144 link=board=19;threadid=5196;start=0#51194 date=1033650543]
    I hate seeing such silliness. It makes me mad. I guess I am just jealous about Linux. I want Linux to be the true golden child of the computing world. I want it to be the great messiah. I fear that such petty differences will turn others off to my little "religious" experience. Nuff said.

    Cheers
    [/quote]

    As long as there are people out there who want to turn Linux into the next Microsoft(RedHat, Mandrake, etc.), Linux will never become the messiah.

    That is, unless you're thinking of noncommercial distros like Debian that truly beat the pants off of Windows and RPM-based distros.

  4. #4
    Guest

    Re:Great debate: Linux by the numbers

    they should number it 10.4 and call it raugaj .

  5. #5

    Re:Great debate: Linux by the numbers

    [quote author=Sarah31 link=board=19;threadid=5196;start=0#51248 date=1033702907]
    they should number it 10.4 and call it raugaj .
    [/quote]

    Hehe.

  6. #6
    Moderator
    Good Guru
    Schotty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    5,760

    Re:Great debate: Linux by the numbers

    Well, I may be in the minority but this is what I was taught in programming class and project management.

    You start off with a new project, and it is a .1 at that point. Once you get the basic goals of the project done, its a 1.0. After that, to go to 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, etc, you need to have a major change in the functionality/code to warant this NEW VERSION. Not a bugfix neccesarily, but like a revamped UI, an new algorithm that gives a 45% speed increase, like that.

    As far as I can tell, its a tossup here. 3.0 may be an appropriate, but by the same acounts 2.6 can be. So as my education has taught -- 2.6 shall be the new version. If we are that close, the 2.7 tree can be for 3.0. There should be enough new improvements implemented with non-beta code to warrant a version (not revision) increase by then.

Similar Threads

  1. REALLY BIG NUMBERS
    By Fatal Error in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-25-2005, 08:08 PM
  2. WAS: Funny joke - Politics debate
    By mcdougrs in forum General Chat
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-29-2004, 09:19 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-18-2002, 05:27 AM
  4. Back to the IDEBUS== Debate
    By Rastar in forum Linux - Hardware, Networking & Security
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-19-2002, 05:28 PM
  5. Great Quotes from Great Skeptics
    By JimH in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-16-2002, 04:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •