Linux 3.0 RC1 Released

[Guest]

Linus Torvalds officially announced Linux kernel version 3.0 RC1, which was released as a 93 MB download late Sunday.

Linux 3.0 RC1 Released : Read more

 

[pocketdrummer]

That's kind of disappointing, really. Usually large version jumps (1.0 - 2.0) are saved for large changes in the way the program operates. Having a few minor improvements doesn't seem to necessitate a whole version number. I get that it's been "too long" since they made it 3.0, but to just arbitrarily bump it up for that reason is kind of dumb. Why is this even news?

This could be reduced to the following:
"Linus felt it was time to reversion linux on a whim, poof."

 

[captaincharisma]

looks like computer geeks have something else to jack off to now

 

[alchemy69]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[MxM]

"Microsoft Linux Kinect driver"

That should be either Microsoft Kinect Linux driver (preferred) or Linux Microsoft Kinect driver, but not Microsoft Linux Kinect driver - there is no "Microsoft Linux" or "Linux Kinect"

 

[misry]

Grammar Quadrant - LLLAAAAAMMMEE!

 

[godmodder]

Linux has got nothing new to offer, so they just randomly increase it's version number to pretend it has...

 

[mayankleoboy1]

"Linus felt it was time to reversion linux on a whim, poof."

do you know who invented Linux?
if i make an OS, i can call it whatever the hell i want it.

 

[bunz_of_steel]

if going to v3.0 is no big deal other than ...whatever why the big fuss about not going to it? I agree w/Linus 3.0 vs 2.6.39. I like it! so WTF (Why The Face?) all you M$ luvers

 

[bit_user]

"Linux is the Windows of the opensource world", as a friend of mine put it who has worked on the guts of more OSes that I've even run.

I use Linux because it's a good fit for my needs & I like it as a development environment. That said, I have no love for the kernel. I wish there were an opensource microkernel OS that was as well-supported as Linux. You'd get better performance from your multi-core CPU & the pace of development would be faster because fewer things would require kernel changes.

The only real reason Linux is so successful is that it developed more momentum, sooner. Now, it is in a dominant position and something radically different and way better would be needed to displace it.

 

[bit_user]

[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]That's kind of disappointing, really. Usually large version jumps (1.0 - 2.0) are saved for large changes in the way the program operates.[/citation]
Yeah, I was hopeful that the developers had some nice surprises in store for us that would have been too big or break too much stuff to introduce in a normal release. For instance, Linux introduced multi-processor support in 2.0. It was a pretty big deal when that hit.

In some ways, this might be seen as a success of their current model, if it means that there simply is no need to hold off big changes. I don't follow kernel development closely enough to know if that's the case. Maybe some kind of person, such as a journalist, could ask?

 

[DSpider]

[citation][nom]bit_user[/nom]I wish there were an opensource microkernel OS that was as well-supported as Linux. You'd get better performance from your multi-core CPU & the pace of development would be faster because fewer things would require kernel changes.[/citation]
There's TinyCore Linux. But it's usually a good idea to keep it current because newer kernel versions sometimes patch exploits and other potential security holes.

If you don't need the full 90 MB - for instance if you don't have (or use) a printer, wifi router, btrfs experimental filesystem, card reader or a Sony memory stick in your PSP, etc. etc. etc., you can compile your own kernel from the source code.

 

[DSpider]

[citation][nom]alchemy69[/nom]If it ain't broke, don't fix it.[/citation]
It's not broken, it's overdue. 1996 was a long long time ago, in a galaxy not so far away...

Honestly I don't remember the last time I had a kernel panic - and I use Arch Linux as my main OS, a bleeding-edge distribution (meaning the most essential packages to run the system are fresh from the upstream brewery).

 

[bit_user]

[citation][nom]DSpider[/nom]There's TinyCore Linux. But it's usually a good idea to keep it current because newer kernel versions sometimes patch exploits and other potential security holes.If you don't need the full 90 MB - [/citation]A microkernel refers to the architecture of an OS - not how many features are compiled in or how many packages are included in a distro.

Linux is more of a monolithic kernel design, although it is modular.

 

[bunz_of_steel]

Personally I run Linux Mint 64bit at the house as a desktop and the wife and kids love it. I really like it because it's FREE! and I have my os loaded with only what I want not w/all the adverts and bloatware... . Hard to compete against a good stable and free OS.

 

[bit_user]

[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]do you know who invented Linux?[/citation]
"created", mmm-kay? "invented" implies something novel, which Linux wasn't. Not to say that novel features haven't gone in, since then, of course.

Linus deserves a lot of credit, but there was nothing new or special about his original effort, save for the fact that he open-sourced it and a community grew around developing & improving it.

 

[palladin9479]

The reason is actually fairly easy if your used to dealing with "Enterprise" distros. The golden standard is currently Red Had Enterprise Linux 5, and their still using 2.6.18.xx kernel. 2.6.19 introduced several major networking fixes / changes amongst a host of other things and several distro's refuse to retool their GUI's and supporting code, so instead they apply the security patch's of the newer kernels but leave out all the functional updates. Its been a problem for awhile, you get software / packages that require something that requires 2.6.19 or higher and you can't use it without building your own Kernel and risk breaking your support agreements with the venders (RH / Dell / etc..) because the new kernel isn't include in the deal.

Now that there is a major release all the distro's will be forced to do one of two things. Maintain the kernel "2.6" stamp and continue with their current tool set, or finally rebuild their stuff to work with the later revision and get a "3.0" stamp they can put on. A product with a 3.0 stamp looks more attractive then a competitors product with "2.6" stamped on it. I expect RH and the rest (CentOS / ect..) to have updated kernels soon after this release. They'll parade it as part of a "new" version of their product.

 

[fir_ser]

Hope this update is adapted by many distros.