Linux kernel 4.0 released

[wickedplayer494]

[url]http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1504.1/03198.html[/url]

[quote=Linus Torvalds]So I decided to release 4.0 as per the normal schedule, because there really weren't any known issues, and while I'll be traveling during the end of the upcoming week due to a college visit, I'm hoping that won't affect the merge window very much. We'll see.

Linux 4.0 was a pretty small release both in linux-next and in final size, although obviously "small" is all relative. It's still over 10k non-merge commits. But we've definitely had bigger releases (and judging by linux-next v4.1 is going to be one of the bigger ones).

Which is all good. It definitely matches the "v4.0 is supposed to be a _stable_ release", and very much not about new experimental features etc. I'm personally so much happier with time-based releases than the
bad old days when we had feature-based releases.

That said, there's a few interesting numerological things going on with 4.0. Looking at just the statistics in git, this release is not just when we cross half a million commits total, but also cross the 4 million git object limit. Interestingly (if you look for numeric patterns), Linux 3.0 was when we crossed a quarter million commits and 2 million git objects, so there's a nice (and completely unintentional) pattern there when it comes to the kernel git repository.[/quote]

[url]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/12/torvalds_presses_the_button_and_linux_40_loads/[/url]

[quote=The Register]...

The new number isn't a sign of a major upgrade. As we've chronicled, Torvalds thinks that it looks a bit silly when version numbers go beyond x.19. He therefore decided it would be best to tick over from 3.19 to 4.0 for the sake of neatness, rather than to celebrate any particular milestone in the kernel.[/quote]

[MuThing]

Reminds me of when kernel 3.0 came out, and it was literally because 2.6.32 or whatever was too much of a mouthful.

[meppers]

[QUOTE]The new number isn't a sign of a major upgrade. As we've chronicled, Torvalds thinks that it looks a bit silly when version numbers go beyond x.19. He therefore decided it would be best to tick over from 3.19 to 4.0 for the sake of neatness, rather than to celebrate any particular milestone in the kernel.[/QUOTE]

I dont get this

[lordcrypto]

[QUOTE=meppers;47514966]I dont get this[/QUOTE]

version numbers dont follow decimals

i could have v3.123000000.5

but that just looks absurdly stupid and unless you're using semantic versioning there's no reason not to bump major at that point

[Rahu X]

[QUOTE=MasterFen006;47514905]Reminds me of when kernel 3.0 came out, and it was literally because 2.6.32 or whatever was too much of a mouthful.[/QUOTE]

It's been a bit since I've delved around with Linux, but aren't there still modern distros that run 2.6.32 for the kernel version?

I know when 3.0 came out, a lot of distros tended to stick with 2.6.x, even a year or two after it came out.

Is there just something awesome about v2.6 that I'm missing?

[Socram]

[QUOTE=Rahu X;47515119]It's been a bit since I've delved around with Linux, but aren't there still modern distros that run 2.6.32 for the kernel version?

I know when 3.0 came out, a lot of distros tended to stick with 2.6.x, even a year or two after it came out.

Is there just something awesome about v2.6 that I'm missing?[/QUOTE]

People are just afraid of change, especially in this camp... lots of things could potentially break when upgrading, why not just stick around on old architecture that you know works?

Its a big problem throughout the tech industry.

[Dilbert]

Version numbers are so arbitrary, but it is his choice.

[Van-man]

[QUOTE=Socram;47515428]People are just afraid of change, especially in this camp... lots of things could potentially break when upgrading, why not just stick around on old architecture that you know works?

Its a big problem throughout the tech industry.[/QUOTE]

It's a case of sticking with that you know inside-and-out, versus something new that might have hidden bugs yet to be discovered.

[I]If it ain't broke, don't fix it.[/I]

[sloppy_joes]

[QUOTE=Van-man;47515580]It's a case of sticking with that you know inside-and-out, versus something new that might have hidden bugs yet to be discovered.

[I]If it ain't broke, don't fix it.[/I][/QUOTE]

i think a lot of linux distros and linux users love the idea of "keep it simple, stupid" and upgrading things makes it less simple generally.
also some upgrades undo user specific things and you have to reconfigure things which is a pain.

as you said, if it aint broke dont fix it.

[Van-man]

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;47515592]i think a lot of linux distros and linux users love the idea of "keep it simple, stupid" and upgrading things makes it less simple generally because upgrading increases the chance of errors.
also some upgrades undo user specific things and you have to reconfigure things which is a pain.

as you said, if it aint broke dont fix it.[/QUOTE]

And then there's Arch Linux.
Never again....

[buttsexv3]

[QUOTE=Van-man;47515610]And then there's Arch Linux.
Never again....[/QUOTE]

arch is easy, try lfs

[sasherz]

[QUOTE=Van-man;47515610]And then there's Arch Linux.
Never again....[/QUOTE]

I run Arch on my laptop. It's only difficult to install because you have to do everything manually. It only took me ~2 hours to do it. I prefer Arch over other distros because you have the ability to build your experience from the ground up. It's definitly a hobby OS, but that's how I like it.

[buttsexv3]

I used to be able to finish an arch install in 45 minutes without referencing any documentation. I haven't done that in years though, I tried a few months back but a lot of the stuff I used to use was depreciated and no longer worked

[hexpunK]

[QUOTE=Van-man;47515610]And then there's Arch Linux.
Never again....[/QUOTE]

An entire distro based around being bleeding edge is fine normally. As long as everything is up to date or so stable you don't want to update it, things should go fine.

What isn't fun is 'accidentally' installing something that's far too new for your distro to actually support nicely. I've managed to kill Linux Mint by just trying to install a newer PHP server for me to dick around with thanks to dependency hell. So many things that were core were so old because Mint likes to be stable that updating them broke everything.

[nikomo]

RC1 was released 23-02-2015: [url]https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c517d838eb7d07bbe9507871fab3931deccff539[/url]
Release was released 12-04-2015: [url]https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=39a8804455fb23f09157341d3ba7db6d7ae6ee76[/url]

The changes happening in Linux, compared to any other software project, are insane, when you think about how many there are, and how quickly they happen.
Just goes to show how strong the open development model is, and why proprietary software can't keep up.

[Levelog]

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;47514983]version numbers dont follow decimals

i could have v3.123000000.5

but that just looks absurdly stupid and unless you're using semantic versioning there's no reason not to bump major at that point[/QUOTE]

Fucking Java

[長門有希]

it's weird how a lot of software starts out with relatively normal numbering for its versions

then gets stuck at a single digit for 15 years

[Elspin]

[QUOTE=elevate;47515514]Version numbers are so arbitrary, but it is his choice.[/QUOTE]

Alright but let's be fair here, when microsoft updated the kernel version to match the windows version for neatness everyone threw an absolute shitfit in SH :v:

anyhow, this is very neat:
[QUOTE]Notable inclusions are the addition of non-disruptive patching, support for Intel's Quark systems-on-a-chips[/QUOTE]

[itisjuly]

[QUOTE=Ezhik;47516319]it's weird how a lot of software starts out with relatively normal numbering for its versions

then gets stuck at a single digit for 15 years[/QUOTE]

Some software becomes feature complete, at which point major versions slow down drastically.

[Billy2600]

Meanwhile, Firefox went from 3 to 37 in a span of a few years.

[Levelog]

[QUOTE=Elspin;47516525]Alright but let's be fair here, when microsoft updated the kernel version to match the windows version for neatness everyone threw an absolute shitfit in SH :v:

anyhow, this is very neat:[/QUOTE]

I still need to pick up one of those quarks. No clue what to do with it though.

[shodan]

[QUOTE=Billy2600;47516683]Meanwhile, Firefox went from 3 to 37 in a span of a few years.[/QUOTE]

Different numbering system. It's easier for a consumer to think about versions that way

[ubermensch]

[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;47517102]Different numbering system. It's easier for a consumer to think about versions that way[/QUOTE]

Google Chrome is at version 41 for stable at the moment which is pretty mental.