A bore is a person who lights up the room by leaving it
|
|
|
Linus Torvalds delays Linux 3.0 launch due to a subtle bug
LINUX FOUNDER Linus Torvalds has said that he's delaying the release of Linux 3.0 due to the discovery of a bug.
Torvalds announced back in May that the Linux 2.6.40 kernel will be rebadged as the Linux 3.0 kernel. The projected release date of Linux 3.0 was supposed to be today, but in a post on Google+, Torvalds explained that the discovery of a "subtle pathname lookup bug" has delayed the release.
Torvalds' message read, "Looks like I won't be releasing 3.0 today, just because Hugh [Dickins] found this incredibly subtle pathname lookup bug. We have a patch, we understand the problem, and it looks ObviouslyCorrect(tm), but I don't think I want to release 3.0 just a couple of hours after applying it. Of course, the bug is so hard to see that Hugh needs weeks to reproduce it even with his stress test, so we could just ignore it and backport the fix later. But I really hate making releases with known issues even if it's almost certainly a 'nobody will ever hit this in practice' issue."
While closed source developers might have just winged it, Torvalds has historically taken the issue of release quality very seriously and it is no surprise that something like this, no matter how subtle, will delay a release. While Linux 3.0 might for the most part be just a renumbering of Linux 2.6.40, the fact that it comes with a major version number increment means that it likely will garner widespread attention, so reducing the number of bugs, even by one, can only help.
Realistically Torvalds' decision to delay the release of Linux 3.0 is unlikely to hurt the vast majority of Linux users that rely on Linux-based distributions to package kernel releases. These downstream releases have in the past been some way behind the bleeding edge that is put out by the Linux kernel development team.
Torvalds did not say when exactly he expects to release Linux 3.0, but we'll guess that it will be a matter of weeks, not days. µ
Tags: Software
Share this:
Share
Wow, sounds like you've been hanging out with Drashek :-)
Good that the quality is kept up the ante. Remains to get that that whole linux thing working.
TWO IS COMPANY... BUT -THREE- IS A CROWD.
THIRD TIME LUCKY!
THIRD ROCK FROM THE SUN.
THIRD WORLD.
THIRD RAIL IS THE -POWER- RAIL.
THIRD EYE BLIND.
THIRD ANGLE PROJECTION.
THE THREE R'S.
THREE STOOGES.
ARE YOU GETTING THE POINT HERE?!?!
Shit, google roped in torvalds, I guess we'll need to write our own OS to be free.
Or give up on the whole computer/phone/tablet/internet thing possibly.
At least when you write your own OS you can't blame anybody for all the bugs, and there's less money in hacking it :)
The initial Kernel 2.6 was not worth the jump to 3.0 and the latest point release of what would have been 2.6.40 is not that much better than the previous 2.6.3* release.
But the latest release has had enough changes since the first 2.6 to be worth reaching a new .0 release.
It's OK as long as they don't get carried away like others who have a 1 or more major #.0 release every year.
The 3.0 release creates a good starting point for future systems and application. Incremental changes can keep backward compatibility and a major number change will cause all apps that check kernel version to need to check for 3.0. It also provides a finishing point for the creation of any 2.6 compatibility library and you can remove some unwanted code that was left for backward compatibility.
Most company's are more than happy to sell you a broken product and try to fix it later, maybe. Once they have your money that's all that matters.
It was not always that way and it's great to see someone who takes pride in there product.
"Luckily we still have Windows."
Cuz the more bugs the merrier? Interesting perspective!
The kernel is highly tested and can no way be described as bleeding edge even for a .0 release
Takes a rabid fanboy to reverse this story to try and make Windows look good.
It takes weeks on Linux to reproduce a bug related to file paths? LOL.
Luckily we still have Windows.
none of us would live to see a new version of Windows. And of course that would be good for everyone.