Linux Kernel 3.0?

An anonymous reader writes "A discussion on the Linux kernel mailing list between Linux creator Linus Torvalds, Linux guru Ingo Molnar, and a few others debated the name of the upcoming stable kernel release. The choices: 2.6 or 3.0. Evidently there's been enough improvements, most notably the VM, that they're leaning towards calling it 3.0..."

Consumer Marketing

To a consumer, 3.0 sounds like a better product than 2.6

My vote would be to make it Linux 10.0 to make it compatible with the SuSe & mandrake number systems. :-)

Re:Consumer Marketing

To a consumer, 3.0 sounds like a better product than 2.6
My vote would be to make it Linux 10.0 to make it compatible with the SuSe & mandrake number systems. :-)

In my opinion a consumer will never notice the kernel version number. They'll see the distribution version numbers, but won't bother to check which kernel the system is using -- because to do so would mean they'd have to understand that a kernel existed in the first place.

Consumer marketing is irrelevant to the kernel

To a consumer, 3.0 sounds like a better product than 2.6

The Linux kernel alone is not a consumer product.

By itself, it is not very useful, but when you bundle it with a couple of hundred other utilities, applications and environments and call it a distribution, the distribution becomes a consumer product. When you strip it bare and embed it into a device, the device becomes a consumer product. When you load it onto a general purpose computer and call it an appliance, the appliance becomes a consumer product.

When it comes to the kernel, there is no need for consumer level marketing trickery.

And then....

on to 3.11! Oops!

Re:And then....

..and then progress to Linux 95, Linux 98, LiNTux, Linux 2000, LinuXP and then *drum roll* Li.NET? :P

Re:And then....

Microsoft = .NET
Apple = .MAC
Linux = .TUX

Why not use Microsoft's versioning system?

• 3.1 = Universal Beta
• 4.0 = First stable release
• 5.0 = Last stable release
• XP = DRM-crip^H^H^H^Hdifferently-abled release

It's all marketing

Though some of the improvements may have been a real boost (the O(1) scheduler, etc), the decision to call it "3.0" won't come until some serious marketing decisions are made.

Linux is not an underground system anymore -- it is a competitor in a business market and means billions of dollars to people and businesses, as unsuccessful [yahoo.com] as they may be.

Calling the kernel 3.0 is just a name, a marketing strategy, that will give the idea to people who aren't in the know that something truly significant and revolutionary has happened.

There's clearly a war going on between the idealists and the realists in that mailing list, and a simple number like "3.0" can make or break millions of dollars.

As Shakespeare said (more or less)

A rose by any other name would still have thorns.

Testing 2.5

Linus said:

--
Linus agreed that if the VM is as good as it seems to be, indeed the upcoming release deserves to be called 3.0. But he also pointed out that there are many silent users who tend not to speak up until there is an official release. He asks, "people who are having VM trouble with the current 2.5.x series, please _complain_, and tell what your workload is. Don't sit silent and make us think we're good to go.. And if Ingo is right, I'll do the 3.0.x thing."
---

So does this mean that us semi-power users should be going ahead and testing the 2.5 kernel? If so to what degree.. Should we be running 2.5 on our desktop boxes? What about video drivers (nvidia) and all that?... When does it actually get into the 'testing' time frame, hence things start to become stable?

Cheers

craz

Re:Testing 2.5

The 'testing' time frame-- probably the closest thing to that is the planned Oct 31 feature freeze. After that, the focus should be on getting it into a releaseable state.

Take a lesson from emacs here

Emacs adheres religiously to the maxim of only bumping up the release number for really major changes (i.e., those that created backwards incompatibility.). Consequently, they are on point release 21 or something--they have dropped the initial 1. or 2. because it apparently seemed redundant.

Re:Take a lesson from emacs here

> The minor has become the de facto major, is what I am trying to
> say. Their strict adherance to not incrementing the major has
> accomplished the opposite of what they wanted.

No, no, you don't understand. Current versions are still numbered
0.21.n.n because the first major release hasn't been reached yet.

The version number won't be incremented to 1.0 until Emacs has all
the fundamentally vital features it needs to be credibly called a
text editor. Besides better threading (planned for 0.22 or 0.23),
Emacs still needs thorough support for multiple human languages
and OS platforms, a more extensive help system, and complete text
manipulation functionality before a solid 1.0 release can be made.
Better (reentrant) scriptability and networking support would also
be very nice to have for the 1.0 release. Sure, the developers
and early adopters don't bother to say the "0." part, but we all
know it's there. As far as end users are concerned, Emacs really
doesn't even exist yet, in fully-functional released form. Those
of us who have started using it early only do so for testing, or
because there are no alternatives. (If anyone is aware of any
fully-functional text editing application, whether open or closed,
commercial or non-commercial, I would like to know about it, but I
have looked high and low and am under the impression that there is
none available for any platform, at any price. Emacs 0.21, despite
its obvious incompleteness, is the closest thing there is that I
have been able to find.)

See, people may think Mozilla.org invented the fully-functional
1.0 release, but Emacs has had that philosophy all along. In
spades. So, now you know ;-)

Re:Hm

...it's still the newer Linux ("Linux kernel" is redundant).

I'm pretty sure that RMS hates you.

Re:Hm

Nope .. He always makes the speach go something like thigs:

"Linux is the kernel, which was written by Linus (and others). The distributions are the Linux kernel + GNU Utitilites - so Linux distributions should be called GNU/Linux"

On that basis the Linux Kernel is just Linux.

"Linux kernel" because it's a trademark

"Linux kernel" is redundant

No. Under USA trademark law, product and brand names are adjectives and should be followed by a generic noun. Thus, "Linux kernel", "Windows operating system", "Mac OS", "Macintosh computer", "Kleenex tissue", "SPAM luncheon meat", "Xerox copier", etc.

Importance of Versioning

As Linus said, it doesn't really matter what it's called, so long as people use it. Versions don't have any real technical meaning (other than the even/odd kernels which signify stable/development).

Since it doesn't have any technical meaning, it shouldn't be argued on technical merit. However, version numbers play a big roll in the business world. Business and marketing folk get the biggerbetterfaster vibe from increasing version numbers.

Several distributions just released new versions in the last couple of months, or are on the verge of releasing new versions. Redhat, Mandrake, Debian, etc. Good stuff. Let the hype play out, and don't trump it by releasing a Brand New Big Version Kernel that none of the distros contain.

Make this one 2.6. Technical people in the know, the ones who run the servers, the ones who really need the performance increases, will upgrade accordingly. Rumors in the press will be able to convince people that Linux is growing and kicking ass.

Make the 3.0 switch after distributions have caught their breath, and after some of the other nifty things that impact userland have been completed: the POSIX stuff, further refinement of the new VM system, FS improvements (resizing, reiser 4, etc).

Then everyone can whoop and holler about what a great new kernel it is, and how much more added value it gives to distribution version increments, etc. etc.

Linux is great technology. Fantastic technology. It's development shouldn't be dictated by fickle marketroids. But version numbers are the most publicly visible attribute of the kernel, and should be treated accordingly.

It should be 3.0: here's why

There's no 2.6 in the list of What Software Version Numbers Really Mean [stokely.com], so obviously it can't be 2.6. Therefore it must be at least 3.0. In fact, I'm stil confused as to how a 2.4 release got out.

This is the biggest problem with Linux

In the time that Linux has gone from 0.9 to 2.5, Windows has gone from 3.11 to 2000 ! In other words, Windows development is proceeding at 1331.26 times the development of Linux! No wonder Microsoft is light-years ahead of Linux.

I think we should speed up development and annoint a dedicated "version czar" who will make sure that the Linux kernels stay ahead of Windows. Hard as it may be, I'm willing to ``do my share'' and volunteer for this position. My first step would be to shift the decimal point 3 places to the right. This decimal has been hogging the #2 spot in the release number for too long; it is time it got relegated to the #5 spot, where it rightfully belongs.

:-) for the :-)-impaired

Sounds like he means it

While I defiantly see the point about binary compatibility, it doesn't have to be the only major upgrade reason. I think I'll go compile it right now to make sure we are ready for this...

The truth is changing major version numbers would give the Linux business a major shot in the arm. Every press establishment would have no choice but to run a story about Linux and it's capibilities at a time when MS is chasing it's customers off, and everybody would have to upgrade their Linux mascot.

Do you really think there would be version wars if the announcments didn't make the participants money?

Linux IV

Jump the revision to IV. The major improvements are in the IO blocking and VM subsystem. That's the excuse... but the real reason would be to benefit from the press explaining the numbering revision and what it means--that's the ploy Microsoft, Intel, and IBM have used to manipulate free press about their products ever since, well, the IBM AT and IBM PS/2. Heck, even Apple does it.

Linux IV, becuase Free software needs free press, too.

Version number abuse

Argh! The first digit in the kernel version number was always meant to indicate the ABI version! They should NOT change it from 2. to 3. unless they intend to make major (backwards-incompatible) changes to the kernel ABI. If they do this then we will lose the second-to-last piece of information in kernel version numbers. (the last piece being the even/odd stable/development thing)

I guess Linus is falling into the same trap as most other free software developers. Already in most software packages, version numbers provide nothing more than an ordered sequence of releases. There is no way to tell just by looking at a version number what ABI/API version is exported, whether it is a stable or development release, etc. Pathetic.

A little history

The change from 1.x to 2.0 was made at the time that the a.out format was dropped in favor of elf. But wasn't this just a library change? Anyway after 2.8 they could go to 2.10, no reason the second number can't be two digits. Still the changes to vm, and /dev alone might be enough to jump it to 3.0, especially if the changes for SMT with kernel pre-emption are added.

Afterthought?

There's something strange about making a bumping a major version number as an afterthought, don't you think?

Don't get me wrong... I have all the confidence in the world in Linus, and he knows way more about what he's doing than I do. I'm just surprised that a project that organized wouldn't have a "3.0 List" by now of all the new stuff they plan to do in 3.0 one of these days... and when they start putting all those pieces together in a source tree, they would call that the "3.0 code" from the beginning.

At least that's the way I would imagine it. But don't miscontrue anything I've said as a suggestion that I have any idea what I'm talking about .

RP

I prefer 2.6

I'm not a developer or anyone important, but I think it would be psychologically good for the developers to call it 2.6. If they call it 3.0 it will be an extra excuse to screw around with stuff they should be releasing--because, after all, we're expecting something really new in a major number revision. The thinking would be "hey, 3.0 sounds like a big deal, so I should take my time and mess with everything before we release it."

If the VM improvements are really so cool. just stick them into 2.6, get it out the door, and save your grand schemes for the next release. I know it must be tempting to stick in the next great idea that seems just around the corner, but that just leads to endless delays and demoralizes the hackers that finished their work "on time" as they're waiting out to feature freeze while everyone else is still cleaning their code for release.

Ideal would be, I think, to call a 2.6 feature freeze very soon, and very shortly thereafter, open a 2.7 (2.9?) unstable branch where "anything goes."

Should not be 3.0 until 64-bit through and through

I believe the Linux kernel should not be called 3.0 until it is 64-bit through and through.

The difference between 1.x and 2.x was a major architectural change: multiprocessor capability and portability to different platforms. The difference of 3.x should be equally as large: widening of all interfaces and data structures that are currently reaching their limits.

This includes 64-bit memory access, 64-bit file size access, 64-bit block counts on filesystems, and so on. Important external interfaces such as networking and filesystems must also be widened. A fully complete and robust IPv6 stack is a must: something that isn't quite there yet, but is getting close.

Essentially all fields in stat() require widening! Major and minor device numbers desperately need more room. Inode numbers and file size 64-bit, of course. Timestamps need to fix the Y2038 problem: 64-bit, possibly with added precision as well (to guarantee each file can be unambiguously sorted by time even on fast systems with such applications as parallel make). Security needs to be more fine grained (full ACL support). 32-bit UID and GID numbers. And finally, the filename itself needs to have full Unicode support without loss of field width (255 Unicode characters should be accepted). The output of the ls(1) command is a call to action: essentially every field there is in need of widening!

The main difference should be in the defaults: currently, standard stat() file limits and IPv4 are the defaults, and programs must go out of their way to request larger sizes (O_LARGEFILE) and IPv6. The programming model should be changed to provide programs with the widened resources as standard. This will take a long time, and is a gradual evolution, so there is a definite need for 2.6 and possibly 2.8 as transitional steps. The widening of these critical system resources is probably the main thing keeping Linux from large commercial UNIX installations!

You're all right, but I'm righter ;)

There have been some excellent and very valid points made in the comments here - bumping it gives a media boost because everyone will devote a few screen inches to it. That therefore needs to be balanced with a collection of new features that people can be sold on. "It runs millions more threads than you will ever see, it does it in the blink of a very small and fast blinking bat" isn't quite the same as "we put in all new disk management and resizing tools, all new enterprise-class filing systems, top notch new security controls..", etc, etc.
Those are all perfectly true and someone needs to work that out, not to mention work out if it really matters.
What I think really does matter is what the 3.0 release comes from, not when. I really wouldn't like to see 2.5 or 2.9 go straight into 3.0. Sure it may be a lovely new kernel, but if it's going to take until 3.0.14 to get stable enough, people are going to be unhappy.
I guess my suggestion therefore would be to turn 2.5 into 2.6, get it stable and into all the major distros, then run two development trees, an experimental 3.1 for way out new core stuff, but also a 2.9 that simply adds non-core things to 2.6 (e.g. Reiser4, EVMS, MACs, etc.) so that it has a stable base to sit on while integration work is done. The wonderous BitKeeper ought to make back/forward porting work done on each tree relatively simple, plus we get to announce a big 3.0 release that not only has tons of sweet new features, but also has many months of proven stability because it's core is really 2.6. Nes pas?

Re:I can see it now

Yeah right..

2005-03-28: Debian 3.1 is released!
It includes the advanced Linux 2.4.8-kernel, KDE 2.2.1 and
four year old versions of another 20000 or so packages.
Get it here!