Linux 3.0-rc1 is here

For those wondering what's new:<p>“So what are the big changes?<p>NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. Sure, we have the usual two thirds driver changes, and a lot of random fixes, but the point is that 3.0 is <i>just</i> about renumbering, we are very much <i>not</i> doing a KDE-4 or a Gnome-3 here. No breakage, no special scary new features, nothing at all like that. We've been doing time-based releases for many years now, this is in no way about features. If you want an excuse for the renumbering, you really should look at the time-based one ("20 years") instead.”<p>by Linus Torvalds<p>source: ttp://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1147415

Linus' email is more interesting than the commit: <a href="http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1147415" rel="nofollow">http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1147415</a>

Despite all criticism and cynicism all over the Linux communities about the numbering and all that stuff, for me, every release of the Kernel (as well as any other major / dominant open source platform / project) is a reason for celebration.<p>It simply means, openness and freedom won the software/internet game. The fact there are people out there, spend the best of their times, contributing code and manuals docs, debugging and filing bugs, etc. etc. Is a sign that RMS and alike were not _"a bunch of hippies who likes to code for free"_ or even worst, a bunch of communists as some used to say at the beginning of Linux breakthrough.<p>From my own personal experience, it also means, the more open you will be, the more open software you will rely on, the more money you will make by the end of the day.<p>Thank you Linus, and all kernel contributors, for the great tools and platform you provided us for <i>FREE</i>!

One the one hand, the "benevolent dictator" model has shown itself to work pretty well for Linux, compared to some major failings of the "committee" model on other projects. On the other hand, does anyone think the fact that "major" changes can be done by one person who is "just going all alpha-male" will potentially spook people? I mean, I doubt too many people here on hn have a problem with Linus' personality. I imagine most of us appreciate his sense of humor and respect him as a penultimate hacker... I'm just thinking about starched-shirt types who call the shots in big businesses -- can you imagine being an IT manager and trying to explain to your boss that after 15 years there's a new major version of the Linux kernel because "well the head guy got tired of calling it version 2."<p>Edit: Penultimate apparently doesn't mean what I thought it meant, so, what I meant was "...respect him as a very good hacker...".

"Version numbers? We can increment them!"<p><a href="http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v3.0-rc1" rel="nofollow">http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6...</a>

<p><pre><code> -VERSION = 2 -PATCHLEVEL = 6 -SUBLEVEL = 39 -EXTRAVERSION = -NAME = Flesh-Eating Bats with Fangs +VERSION = 3 +PATCHLEVEL = 0 +SUBLEVEL = 0 +EXTRAVERSION = -rc1 +NAME = Sneaky Weasel</code></pre>

My favorite part is the commit message on the tag: <a href="http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=tag;h=2a23a510142a1ab597f0214e4fadb3c7350bbb8d" rel="nofollow">http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6...</a><p>"Version numbers? We can increment them!" -- Linus Torvalds

A summary of the changes can be found here: <a href="https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/29/204" rel="nofollow">https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/29/204</a>

So, when will Linus be released from mental institution? [0]<p><a href="http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/2/247" rel="nofollow">http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/2/247</a>

I don't know why, but I always get a good chuckle or two from reading or watching Linus' materials.

Its name was Sneaky Weasel.

Wow, he said he might go to 2.8. This is madness.

Down?

<a href="http://www.xkcd.com/178/" rel="nofollow">http://www.xkcd.com/178/</a>

Seems a bit strange to me. A major version increment is supposed to announce "this is significantly different and possibly incompatible".<p>But now it doesn't mean that. It means 20 years.<p>There are extremely good reasons <i>not</i> to increment the major version. For instance tools which take the conservative approach of checking for 2.6 will all be broken. Those tools <i>correctly</i> elected not to risk wrong behavior resulting from a major version change.<p>When you add together the time it takes to compensate for this change for all maintainers everywhere (tools developers, distro developers, <i>everyone</i>), surely it will run into the hundreds of hours, perhaps thousands. All for, functionally, nothing. And sorry for calling you Shirley.<p>Seems to be an objectively bad move. Oh well. This needless-on-purpose change will cause resentment, but after time it will dissipate.

I know they invented git, but that website sure is fugly. Time to switch to github, perhaps :-).