"Hurr durr I'ma sheep" AKA Linux 4.0
-
it seems that we're getting linux 4
.. after extensive statistical analysis of my G+ polling, I've come to the inescapable conclusion that internet polls are bad.
Big surprise.
But "Hurr durr I'ma sheep" trounced "I like online polls" by a 62-to-38% margin, in a poll that people weren't even supposed to participate in. Who can argue with solid numbers like that? 5,796 votes from people who can't even follow the most basic directions?
In contrast, "v4.0" beat out "v3.20" by a slimmer margin of 56-to-44%, but with a total of 29,110 votes right now.
Now, arguably, that vote spread is only about 3,200 votes, which is less than the almost six thousand votes that the "please ignore" poll got, so it could be considered noise.
But hey, I asked, so I'll honor the votes.
-
So basically, Linus decided to honour a poll he had no respect for?
OK…
-
Also, the poll for the release name was accompanied by only the text "Test post please ignore".
-
And one of the poll options is 'I like big versions, and I cannot lie'.
Clearly, he was taking the piss
-
Linus does whatever the fuck he wants
-
the strongest argument for some people advocating 4.0 seems to have been a wish to see 4.1.15 - because 'that was the version of Linux skynet used for the T-800 terminator.
-
Pretty much sums it up
-
Is Linus Torvalds @blakeyrat or something?!
-
Is Linus Torvalds @blakeyrat or something?!
@blakeyrat, sworn enemy of Open Source, being the lead developer behind the world's most popular open-source OS?Eh, stranger things have happened
-
sworn enemy of Open Source, being the lead developer behind the world's most popular open-source OS?
It's the perfect cover-up.
-
Is Linus Torvalds @blakeyrat or something?!
And it suddenly makes sense: the outbursts, the lengthy diatribes, the obsessions. Blakeyrat is Son Of Linus.
-
My only regret is that there was no VERSION_NOT_FOUND.
-
When Linux 3.0 went out, it broke a number of kernel drivers which were checking versions numbers like this:
if (major < 2 || minor < 6) { /* kernel version < 2.6... or is it? */ }I wonder what will break this time...
-
When Linux 3.0 went out, it broke a number of kernel drivers which were checking versions numbers like this:
if (major < 2 || minor < 6) { /* kernel version < 2.6... or is it? */ }I wonder what will break this time...
As much badly-written shit as possible. Maybe, eventually, one day, every developer will think before writing code.Yes yes, naïve little hedgehog I am…
-
This is why I'm against Microsoft's "suck every developer's cock forever no matter how terrible their code is" policy.
Adult language is OK here right?
-
This is why I'm against Microsoft's "suck every developer's cock forever no matter how terrible their code is" policy.
Me too, but MS has to in order to keep the enterprise business; that is where they make their money, after all.
@anonymous234 said:Adult language is OK here right?
No it fucking isn't
-
Also, the funny thing is that Linux went from 2.x to 3.0 for this exact same reason: Linus liked big numbers. And now he does it again because he hasn't had enough.
Coming up next: Linux adopts Chrome's strategy of a new major number every 6 weeks.
-
Linux adopts Chrome's strategy of a new major number every 6 weeks.
Ugh… it's bad enough Firefox and Opera have done so.Why does everyone have to copy Google‽
-
I want to see the same version number inflation in web 2.0. No, we're up to Web 35.6 this week
-
Web 35.6
I'm holding out for Web 69.0 ... the porn version ... wait we already have a porn version ...
-
Also, the funny thing is that Linux went from 2.x to 3.0 for this exact same reason: Linus liked big numbers. And now he does it again because he hasn't had enough.
It's exactly the opposite. He doesn't like big numbers, so the 19 in 3.19 was too big. Same reason he went from 2.6.39 to 3.0.Now, if he keep going at it, at some point the major version number will be too big
-
Now, if he keep going at it, at some point the major version number will be too big
Nah; he'd just invent the concept of a hyper version of something
-
When Linux 3.0 went out, it broke a number of kernel drivers which were checking versions numbers like this:
if (major < 2 || minor < 6) { /* kernel version < 2.6... or is it? */ }I wonder what will break this time...
So, in other words, they made the same kind of mistakes that people made for detecting Windows XP? Which broke when Vista came out and is why Windows 7 has the internal version number "6.1"?
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -- George Santayana
-
And similililarlarly why Windows 9 is being skipped completely
-
No problem, he'll just rename "Linux" to "LinNext" or something and start again from 0.1
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -- George Santayana
"Those who don't care about software quality will just do everything the quick and dirty way so they can collect their paycheck and go home" - Sun Tzu
-
Nah; he'd just invent the concept of a hyper version of something
No need to invent it - Sun already did it with Java 2 SE for versions up till (1.)5.
In other words, Linux 2 Kernel 1.0.
-
And similililarlarly why Windows 9 is being skipped completely
was that ever confirmed by M$ or is that just an urban legend?
-
was that ever confirmed by M$ or is that just an urban legend?
Surely the first digit being '1' is going to cause just as many problems.
-
I don't think there's anything official, but it's the leading theory, and by far and away the most plausible.
-
Surely the first digit being '1' is going to cause just as many problems.
Supposedly, the problem is thousands of programs with code like
if (GetWindowsVersion().Startswith("Windows 9")) { //Windows 9x DisableFancyXPFeatures(); }
-
if (GetWindowsVersion().Startswith("Windows 9"))
{
//Windows 9x
DisableFancyXPFeatures();
}I choose to believe that nobody has ever done that...
-
.... you'd be wrong....
very very very wrong.
i have seen how wrong with my very eyes.
-
open with caution, this may not let you sleep this night
https://searchcode.com/?q=if(version%2Cstartswith("windows+9")
-
-
:(
-
open with caution, this may not let you sleep this night
https://searchcode.com/?q=if(version%2Cstartswith("windows+9")
-
umm..... results for google android.... none of which contain 'Windows 9"
....
shenanigans.
https://searchcode.com/?q=if(version%2Cstartswith("windows+9")&loc=0&loc2=10000&src=12
-
They already changed it to have a UNAME26 which reports 2.6.60 for 4.0 (and 2.6.40 when 3.0 came out).
No newly compiled software will get a UNAME26, because the old number #define was removed from the header files.
-
umm..... results for google android.... none of which contain 'Windows 9"
I don't see it. The results that actually have "Windows" seem to be for stuff that is related to Android but doesn't actually run on it.
-
Supposedly, the problem is thousands of programs with code like
if (GetWindowsVersion().Startswith("Windows 9"))
{
//Windows 9x
DisableFancyXPFeatures();
}I don't understand why people would ever do that when Windows has always had proper APIs for determining the version (and integer major version numbers)
-
-
All the examples I've ever seen are Java, specifically, as it turns out, some functions in the JDK are coded by idiots. I suppose we could pretend to be surprised to be polite. Effectively it comes down to
if(System.getProperty("os.name").StartsWith("Windows 9") { //Windows 9x specific code, often found in //projects that require Java 7 despite Java 7 not running on 9x, //because the responsible developers are dumb and didn't think things through. //given they used "os.name" to determine the "os.version" this is not a big surprise. }It also tends to be found in code from projects abandoned or forked over a year ago or more. Many of them are intended to run on Linux anyway- why the hell they test for Windows at all is perhaps a better question.
-
was that ever confirmed by M$ or is that just an urban legend?
That depends. Do you consider Raymond Chen a reliable source?
-
i've heard of people breaking backward compatibility. but this breaks forward compatibility.
you can't be serious thinking that>=on a version number it's gonna work.
-
But is 3.0 greater than 2.6? Not according to this code.
-
because the responsible developers are dumb and didn't think things through.
That's a reason for many things we see round here.
-
I don't understand why people would ever do that when Windows has always had proper APIs for determining the version (and integer major version numbers)
99% of programs out there only work by accident.
-
That depends. Do you consider Raymond Chen a reliable source?
i do consider him a reliable source, yes. but that post is specifically about windows 95 and pre-dates the announcement of windows 10.
Without further statement from him or another reliable source i would say that the post you linked provides at best circumstantial corroboration for the idea that windows 9 was skipped due to compatibility reasons.
-
is_2_6 = sys.version_info[0] >= 2 and sys.version_info[1] >= 6Release dates for the major and minor versions:[8]
Python 1.0 - January 1994 Python 1.5 - December 31, 1997 Python 1.6 - September 5, 2000 Python 2.0 - October 16, 2000 Python 2.1 - April 17, 2001 Python 2.2 - December 21, 2001 Python 2.3 - July 29, 2003 Python 2.4 - November 30, 2004 Python 2.5 - September 19, 2006 Python 2.6 - October 1, 2008 Python 2.7 - July 3, 2010 Python 3.0 - December 3, 2008 Python 3.1 - June 27, 2009 Python 3.2 - February 20, 2011 Python 3.3 - September 29, 2012 Python 3.4 - March 16, 2014So
is_2_6is false for all versions 2.5 and earlier, true for versions 2.6 and 2.7, false for 3.x and will become true again when 3.6 comes out. Hilarity will almost surely ensue.
-
So is_2_6 is false for all versions 2.5 and earlier, true for versions 2.6 and 2.7, false for 3.x and will become true again when 3.6 comes out. Hilarity will almost surely ensue.
Wait a minute. People are migrating to Python 3? There's a Python 3?
Linux Hardware Reviews & Performance Benchmarks, Open-Source News
May the fourth be with you: Torvalds names next Linux v 4.0
