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 rethinkā€¦

5
Contributors
4
Replies
6
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Tellalca
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?

Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.