Linus Torvalds' poll about “big versions” in kernel releases

jeremy · 02-13-2015, 09:48 AM

Quote:

So, I made noises some time ago about how I don't want another 2.6.39 where the numbers are big enough that you can't really distinguish them.

We're slowly getting up there again, with 3.20 being imminent, and I'm once more close to running out of fingers and toes.

I was making noises about just moving to 4.0 some time ago. But let's see what people think.

So - continue with v3.20, because bigger numbers are sexy, or just move to v4.0 and reset the numbers to something smaller?

Head to Linus' G+ page to vote and see the results.

--jeremy

qlue · 02-14-2015, 02:49 AM

Thanks for the heads-up Jeremy!

astrogeek · 02-14-2015, 04:03 AM

Interesting way to determine the version designator... can only lead to confusion I think.

I wanted to add my click but it seems you have to be a good Google citizen and produce your papers to do so, so Linus will just have to wonder which I would have clicked, and I'll have to wait for the results to be published!

metaschima · 02-14-2015, 10:21 AM

Just set a modulo limit on each part of the version number, if big numbers confuse the average person.

GazL · 02-14-2015, 10:56 AM

They should just drop the major number (which lets face it is completely meaningless) and promote the minor number. So, next one will be Linux 20, and will be followed by Linux 21. Greg K-H can then use the second level for stable maintenance releases: 20.1, 20.2 and so on. In around 20 years we'll get to Linux 100.

EYo · 02-14-2015, 11:24 AM

Well most of those replies just made me feel old, like:

Quote:

I dont think Linux should take the MS route skipping valuable numbers.

LOL! Abstain, even though I can count in my head a long time after my fingers and toes run out.

LinuxUser42 · 02-14-2015, 01:02 PM

Can't distinguish numbers? Are people bad at math, or is he afraid we will end up with some number as 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706 7982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381 9644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412 7372458700660631558817488152092096282925409171536436789259036001133053054882046652138414695194151160 9

Math, as easy as PI.

EYo · 02-14-2015, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrogeek

I wanted to add my click but it seems you have to be a good Google citizen and produce your papers to do so, so Linus will just have to wonder which I would have clicked, and I'll have to wait for the results to be published!

For non-voting yet curious citizens out there, as of now:
19,408 votes
44% (8,597) I like big versions, and I cannot lie.
56% (10,811) v4.0, 'cause I get confused easily.

metaschima · 02-14-2015, 07:20 PM

That's what I figured, most people can hardly count to 10 before getting confused. I'm not sure why Linus would care about this, as such people are unlikely to be dealing with the Linux kernel.

kooru · 02-16-2015, 04:31 AM

I prefered when the change of the major number was due to big changes into the kernel. And yes they were more sexy

genss · 02-16-2015, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaschima

That's what I figured, most people can hardly count to 10 before getting confused.

20, you forgot toes

metaschima · 02-16-2015, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genss

20, you forgot toes

Assuming that anyone would be able to count at least to 20, Linus can just limit each part of the version number to 20 max.

astrogeek · 02-16-2015, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kooru

I prefered when the change of the major number was due to big changes into the kernel. And yes they were more sexy

Yea, that way the number had some meaning, however obscure.

If new number means only new release state and nothing more such as implied by major/minor, then something linear, monotonic and strictly increasing: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...

Sexy? Well, number theory is called The Queen of Mathematics!

rknichols · 02-16-2015, 02:32 PM

Perhaps Linus is having bad memories of the times when the kernel version was 0.99pl54 and everyone was wondering when version 1.0 would finally make it into the world.