| | |
Torvalds confirms there will be no Linux kernel 3.0
I stumbled across an interesting interview with Linus Torvalds over at apcmag.com in which the man himself would appear to be confirming that there will be no Linux kernel 3.0
The first hints are given when he responds to a question concerning why the 2.6 kernel has been around for so long, and explains his reasoning as to why a multi-year development cycle doesn't work concluding that the 2.6 base kernel is in such good shape that there is no pressing reason to go back to the old 'everything changes' development model. Torvalds adds "that means that we'll keep with the 2.6.x codebase, and just incrementally improve on it."
When questioned further, specifically about when we can expect to see the version 3.0 kernel, Torvalds states quite categorically that "we really don't expect to need to go to a 3.0.x version at all." This isn't the first time that Torvalds has questioned the need for a version 3.0, an email from September 2002 published at Kerneltrap says pretty much the same thing. In a reply to Jeff Garzik questioning him about a confirmation of the 2.6 numbering, Torvalds responds "I see no real reason to call it 3.0" and adds "but hey, it's just a number." But it would seem to be a final nail in the coffin of the kernel 3.0 dream, at least for the time being. After all, point increments can only go on for so long and when we hit 2.9.9.9.9.9 there may well be a renewed call for a rethink…
The first hints are given when he responds to a question concerning why the 2.6 kernel has been around for so long, and explains his reasoning as to why a multi-year development cycle doesn't work concluding that the 2.6 base kernel is in such good shape that there is no pressing reason to go back to the old 'everything changes' development model. Torvalds adds "that means that we'll keep with the 2.6.x codebase, and just incrementally improve on it."
When questioned further, specifically about when we can expect to see the version 3.0 kernel, Torvalds states quite categorically that "we really don't expect to need to go to a 3.0.x version at all." This isn't the first time that Torvalds has questioned the need for a version 3.0, an email from September 2002 published at Kerneltrap says pretty much the same thing. In a reply to Jeff Garzik questioning him about a confirmation of the 2.6 numbering, Torvalds responds "I see no real reason to call it 3.0" and adds "but hey, it's just a number." But it would seem to be a final nail in the coffin of the kernel 3.0 dream, at least for the time being. After all, point increments can only go on for so long and when we hit 2.9.9.9.9.9 there may well be a renewed call for a rethink…
0
•
•
•
•
well, after 2.9 there's always 2.10 and you can take that a LOOOOOONG way, especially with the Linux tendency to use ridiculously long strings of subversions.
2.100000999.432325.432321545.35beta143523alpha542323.5234323 anyone?
2.100000999.432325.432321545.35beta143523alpha542323.5234323 anyone?
Similar Threads
- How to better study Linux kernel? (Kernels and Modules)
- how to get the linux kernel version in cpp program (C++)
- linux FFS kernel support (Getting Started and Choosing a Distro)
- News Story: Linux Kernel 2.6.x vulnerabilities (Network Security)
- News Story: Linux kernel development process may be halted (Upcoming News Stories)
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
advertising age amd android apple avatar bluegene botnet browser business cellphone china chips copyright crime data database dell desktop development distributions dos downloads economy email energy enterprise facebook firefox gadgets games gaming google government hacking hardware ibm ibm.news intel intelibm internet iphone ipod itunes law legal linux mac malware marketing medicine memory microsoft mobile mozilla music news novell openoffice opensource operatingsystems os pc piracy porn privacy ps3 recession redhat research russia search security sex socialnetworking software spam sun supercomputer supercomputing survey technology trends trojan twitter ubuntu uk unix video virtualization virus vista vmware web windows windows7 working x86 xbox youtube




