So, I made noises some time ago about how I don't want another 2.6.39 where the numbers are big enough that you can't really distinguish them.
We're slowly getting up there again, with 3.20 being imminent, and I'm once more close to running out of fingers and toes.
I was making noises about just moving to 4.0 some time ago. But let's see what people think.
So - continue with v3.20, because bigger numbers are sexy, or just move to v4.0 and reset the numbers to something smaller?
We're slowly getting up there again, with 3.20 being imminent, and I'm once more close to running out of fingers and toes.
I was making noises about just moving to 4.0 some time ago. But let's see what people think.
So - continue with v3.20, because bigger numbers are sexy, or just move to v4.0 and reset the numbers to something smaller?
-
votes visible to Public
43%
I like big versions, and I cannot lie
57%
v4.0, 'cause I get confused easily
View 470 previous comments
I wish Kernel use firefox/Chrome like version numbering.Mar 3, 2015
+Linus Torvalds I would prefer 4.0 because it not only is simpler but looks cleaner than 3.20 and is less confusing especially for newbies at linux (I am learning but still new).Mar 24, 2015
From my calculations, by 8 August 2160 we will be in Linux kernel 39.0, which poses an interesting paradox. Too bad, I will never confim that.Aug 12, 2015
I know that the deed has already been done, but version numbers should conform to something like major.minor.maintenance (see software versioning wiki). Never heard of a public poll of non-programmers regarding how to version software. :)Aug 19, 2015
+Matthew CLASSIFIED Actually, MS had to jump with the version number from 8 to 10. In internal tests with "Windows 9" as version string it was discovered that some applications crashed or just didn't run the way it was expected. The issue lies within programmers. We are lazy. So most programs just had something like this in their code:
// windows 98 & 95 code below
if (versionString.contains("Windows 9") {
//stuff for Win 95 & 98
}
Which will run the stuff for Win 95 & 98 on any versionString containing "Windows 9", under which Windows 9 obviously fell.
Quick fix: Name it Windows 10. (Now we will most certainly skip the entire Windows 900-999 series for the same reason, note: I hope we won't still see proprietary software about 600 years from now :p)
Even the jump from Windows Vista to 7 was to accommodate lazy programmers :)
Windows Vista is version 6.0, Windows 7 should have been version 7.0, but since there was application incompatibility discovered (most applications seem to check the MAJOR version) they settled with 6.1, but the name stayed 7.Oct 16, 2015
I want Kernel 4.20, not 5.0...Mar 3, 2016
Add a comment...