A unos compañeros de 5to. les dio clase un profesor llamado Horst von Brand, quien trajo Linux al campus. Adivinen dónde me vengo a topar con sus palabras:
From: Horst von Brand
Subject: Kernel version [Was: Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice driver]
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:40:22 -0400
Ingo Molnar said:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > Tangent question, is it definitely to be named 2.6?
> > I see no real reason to call it 3.0.
> > The order-of-magnitude threading improvements might just come closest to
> > being a "new thing", but yeah, I still consider it 2.6.x. We don't have
> > new architectures or other really fundamental stuff. In many ways the
> > jump from 2.2 -> 2.4 was bigger than the 2.4 -> 2.6 thing will be, I
> > suspect.
> i consider the VM and IO improvements one of the most important things
> that happened in the past 5 years - and it's definitely something that
> users will notice. Finally we have a top-notch VM and IO subsystem (in
> addition to the already world-class networking subsystem) giving
> significant improvements both on the desktop and the server - the jump
> from 2.4 to 2.5 is much larger than from eg. 2.0 to 2.4.
But is is as large as the jump from 1.2.x to 2.0.x?
> I think due to these improvements if we dont call the next kernel 3.0 then
> probably no Linux kernel in the future will deserve a major number. In 2-4
> years we'll only jump to 3.0 because there's no better number available
> after 2.8. That i consider to be ... boring :) [while kernel releases are
> supposed to be a bit boring, i dont think they should be _that_ boring.]
What is wrong with 2.10, or 2.256 for that matter?
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +[blocked]
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +[blocked]
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +[blocked]
El man es tan vacán, que desarrolla el kernel de Linux. Es un vacán.