LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Software
User Name
Password
Linux - Software This forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 02-12-2003, 07:23 PM   #1
Bluestreak
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Worcester, Massachusetts
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04 and Mandriva Powerpack 2010
Posts: 37

Rep: Reputation: 15
An interesting fact about version numbering


I was checking out this Linux quickstart guide, and found out that the version numbering has meaning (isn't that nice). Odd numbered versions of Linux, and the kernel, mean they can be buggy. They are experimental. Like a beta version, but more table and solid. Even versions of a Linux distribution and the kernel are the tried-and-true versions. Those are stable, and shouldn't crash at all. I tried to install Linux Mandrake 7, but couldn't. Hardware issues. I just recently tried to install Linux Mandrake 9, and I got a black screen after the first page. See where I'm going with this . Well, that's my two cents. Enjoy. (I love the penguin!!!)
 
Old 02-12-2003, 07:38 PM   #2
Tinkster
Moderator
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: in a fallen world
Distribution: slackware by choice, others too :} ... android.
Posts: 22,966
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 865Reputation: 865Reputation: 865Reputation: 865Reputation: 865Reputation: 865Reputation: 865
That's the theory :}

However, Mandrake 8 was a piece of sh*t ;) ...

Even the most faithful followers of Mandrake
in my workplace were swearing & cursing like
mad when they tried to use it ;)

Cheers,
Tink
 
Old 02-12-2003, 08:43 PM   #3
mcleodnine
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2001
Location: Left Coast - Canada
Distribution: s l a c k w a r e
Posts: 2,731

Rep: Reputation: 45
It's a reference to the kernel - not the distributution. ie: 2.4.x vs. 2.5.x (which will be 2.6 or 3.0, depend who u ask).
 
Old 02-12-2003, 11:25 PM   #4
cuckoopint
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 797

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by mcleodnine
It's a reference to the kernel - not the distributution. ie: 2.4.x vs. 2.5.x (which will be 2.6 or 3.0, depend who u ask).
the kernel development rubs off on other stuff. For example, Debian has the stable and testing releases (and yes...the unstable). The stable is only updated for fixes, while the testing is the next planned release. this way you can choose your destiny...
 
Old 02-13-2003, 01:06 AM   #5
Dark_Helmet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,786

Rep: Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369
I think what mcleodine was trying to say was that a distributions version does not follow the same convention as the linux kernel version scheme. In this case Mandrake 9 is not "unstable" because it's an odd-numbered release. I don't know off-hand what version of the kernel is included in that distribution, but if they were throwing in unstable, development versions of the kernel by default, then we may have found the real reason they went under...

When I first started, I mistakenly assumed the kernel version scheme was applied to ALL software... ooops... Took me a while to realize it was for the kernel only.
 
Old 02-13-2003, 07:25 PM   #6
Bluestreak
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Worcester, Massachusetts
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04 and Mandriva Powerpack 2010
Posts: 37

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Post Verifying statement

In that case then, I'll go back to the science museum, and verify what I read there. But I am pretty sure that what I said initially was correct; the odd-numbered versions of the kernel are like beta versions of software, and the even numbered ones are stable, completed versions.
 
Old 02-13-2003, 07:33 PM   #7
Bert
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2001
Location: 406292E 290755N
Distribution: GNU/Linux Slackware 8.1, Redhat 8.0, LFS 4.0
Posts: 1,004

Rep: Reputation: 46
Re: Verifying statement

Quote:
Originally posted by Bluestreak
But I am pretty sure that what I said initially was correct; the odd-numbered versions of the kernel are like beta versions of software, and the even numbered ones are stable, completed versions.
I'm pretty sure mcleodine said that, not yourself Bluestreak. But that's OK, the learning curve is never flat for any of us.

Redhat 7.2 was particularly bad I believe.

Bert
 
Old 02-13-2003, 09:47 PM   #8
Dark_Helmet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,786

Rep: Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369
Here's what "Running Linux" (Third Edition) has to say:
Quote:
Kernel version numbers follow the convention:

major.minor.patchlevel

major is the major version number, which rarely changes, minor is the minor version number, which indicates the current "strain" of the kernel release, and patchlevel is the number of the patch to the current kernel version.
...
By convention, even-numbered kernel versions (2.0, 2.2, and so on) are "stable" releases, patches that contain only bug fixes and no new features. Odd-numbered kernel versions (2.1, 2.3, and so on) are "development" releases, patches that contain whatever new code developers wish to add and bug fixes for that code.
So it would appear the the "even" and "odd" references are toward the minor version number.

Then I assume that the distributions would pick the current "stable" kernel version with the highest patchlevel for shipment in whatever version of their distribution they ship. At least, I'd HOPE they ship with stable versions of the kernel. Whether support software like configuration utilities or hardware discovery progams included in the distribution are stable or not is anybody's guess. It would make sense to me for them to put in the most stable stuff they have. There's no easier way to drive off customers than to give them flaky software that will leave a bad taste in their mouth <= read that as "no repeat business" bad taste.

It's all fun and games until somebody breaks out reference material...

Last edited by Dark_Helmet; 02-13-2003 at 09:52 PM.
 
Old 02-13-2003, 10:50 PM   #9
cuckoopint
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 797

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Helmet
Here's what "Running Linux" (Third Edition) has to say:

So it would appear the the "even" and "odd" references are toward the minor version number.

I thought that was implied. Guess we have to be more clear in our posts...
 
Old 02-13-2003, 11:37 PM   #10
Dark_Helmet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,786

Rep: Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369
It just seemed to me as though people were saying odd numbered distributions were unstable or development versions (like Mandrake 9, or Red Hat 7.1). Or that software, in general, followed that same version convention. I figured that if I wasn't able to follow exactly what was being said, then someone else might have a hard time too.

But I'll be the first to admit I can be "a little slow" at times.
 
Old 02-15-2003, 07:56 PM   #11
Bluestreak
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Worcester, Massachusetts
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04 and Mandriva Powerpack 2010
Posts: 37

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Post Agreeing with Dark_Helmet

Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Helmet
[B]Here's what "Running Linux" (Third Edition) has to say:

Kernel version numbers follow the convention:

major.minor.patchlevel

major is the major version number, which rarely changes, minor is the minor version number, which indicates the current "strain" of the kernel release, and patchlevel is the number of the patch to the current kernel version.
...
By convention, even-numbered kernel versions (2.0, 2.2, and so on) are "stable" releases, patches that contain only bug fixes and no new features. Odd-numbered kernel versions (2.1, 2.3, and so on) are "development" releases, patches that contain whatever new code developers wish to add and bug fixes for that code.....
Unfortunately, I could not quote word for word the Quickguide I was referring from, but what was said here was half the exact words from that very guide. That's basically what I meant. Hope that settles what I meant to say. When I buy the guide, I'll post the whole paragraph here, then you can argue about what typos I probably made about it....
 
Old 02-16-2003, 09:35 AM   #12
yngwin
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: China
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 359

Rep: Reputation: 33
The minor version numbering scheme for stable/development that is used in the linux kernel is used by SOME other software as well. For example Gnome: 2.0 was stable, then they immediately started 2.1 development, which resulted in the latest 2.2 stable release. This scheme seems a sensible thing to use, but many don't. So it's a thing to keep in mind and not be confused.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where can I register the fact that i was the first user of linux in my city? econtrolMX LinuxQuestions.org Member Intro 2 06-30-2004 02:58 AM
Interesting fact about the human mind bolinux General 18 12-02-2003 09:23 PM
install lilo after the fact shanenin Linux - Software 4 09-04-2003 08:59 AM
Version numbering standard? PsychosisNode Programming 3 08-26-2003 10:55 PM
Adding GRUB after the fact? Phil Healey Linux - Software 3 06-28-2003 01:13 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration