On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 05/30/2011 07:39 AM, 俞颐超 wrote:
>>
>> The next kernel version will be 3.0
>>
>> Any decision now?
>>
>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Kwpolska wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:57:23PM +0200, Marek Otahal wrote:
>>
On 05/30/2011 07:39 AM, 俞颐超 wrote:
The next kernel version will be 3.0
Any decision now?
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Kwpolska wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:57:23PM +0200, Marek Otahal wrote:
100% agreed! although i think this thread is pointless,
imagine google search for broken
The next kernel version will be 3.0
Any decision now?
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Kwpolska wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:57:23PM +0200, Marek Otahal wrote:
>> 100% agreed! although i think this thread is pointless,
>> imagine google search for broken wifi:
>> gg linux broadcom wif
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:57:23PM +0200, Marek Otahal wrote:
> 100% agreed! although i think this thread is pointless,
> imagine google search for broken wifi:
> gg linux broadcom wifi problem
> or
> gg kernel broadcom wifi problem
> cheers!
> m.
The `proper' google search terms are:
WiFi Proble
On Thursday 26 of May 2011 23:18:29 Vytautas Stankevičius wrote:
> On Thursday 26 of May 2011 21:19:36 Filip Filipov wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 19:34, Evangelos Foutras
wrote:
> > > Linux is the name of the kernel so using "linux" as the name of the
> > > kernel package would be correct. A
On Thursday 26 of May 2011 21:19:36 Filip Filipov wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 19:34, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> > Linux is the name of the kernel so using "linux" as the name of the
> > kernel package would be correct. After all, the tarballs on kernel.org
> > are named "linux-{version}". :)
>
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 19:34, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> Linux is the name of the kernel so using "linux" as the name of the
> kernel package would be correct. After all, the tarballs on kernel.org
> are named "linux-{version}". :)
>
yes. My idea was that if you look at it, at an higher abstrac
On 26 May 2011 19:02, Filip Filipov wrote:
> about proposal to the "linux" name change. I don't label my car by my
> engine name, or label my engine by my car name , do you?
Linux is the name of the kernel so using "linux" as the name of the
kernel package would be correct. After all, the tarba
about proposal to the "linux" name change. I don't label my car by my
engine name, or label my engine by my car name , do you?
Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 26.05.2011 14:48, schrieb Yaro Kasear:
>> On Thursday, May 26, 2011 02:57:49 Thomas Bächler wrote:
>>> Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle:
Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like
these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating
>
Am 26.05.2011 14:48, schrieb Yaro Kasear:
> On Thursday, May 26, 2011 02:57:49 Thomas Bächler wrote:
>> Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle:
>>> Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like
>>> these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating
>>> System", providing Linux,
On Thursday, May 26, 2011 02:57:49 Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle:
> > Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like
> > these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating
> > System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels,
> > and u
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:28 AM, XeCycle wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20:46PM -0300, Bernardo Barros wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is
>> going to be 3.0.
>> Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to
>> modi
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:57:49AM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle:
> > Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like
> > these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating
> > System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels,
>
2011/5/25, cantabile :
> On 05/25/2011 09:36 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
>> On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baums wrote:
>>> Linux3.0 can easily cause misunderstandings as Linux is usually used as
>>> a generic term for the whole system, the distros, etc. even if the
>>> correct naming of the whole system i
On 25.05.2011 21:35, jesse jaara wrote:
Id say that if we wan't to go the way, where we take other kernels
into account too (hurd) we should name linux-kernel and gurd would be
hurd-kernel. But I see it extreamly unlikely for hurd or anyother
kernel to ever become offical part of arch, atleast no
Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle:
> Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like
> these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating
> System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels,
> and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really
> interesting
On 05/26/2011 06:46 AM, cantabile wrote:
On 05/26/2011 07:28 AM, XeCycle wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20:46PM -0300, Bernardo Barros wrote:
Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like
these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating
System", providing Linux, BSD,
On 05/26/2011 07:28 AM, XeCycle wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20:46PM -0300, Bernardo Barros wrote:
Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like
these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating
System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels,
and users ar
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20:46PM -0300, Bernardo Barros wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is
> going to be 3.0.
> Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to
> modify it anyway.
> Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea..
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 05:33:42PM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> This is a non-issue. The package name was wrong all along, so why not
> let it remain wrong?
Why was the package named as it was? What were the reasons given when
it was created? I've wondered this in the past, especially since othe
On 26 May 2011 03:28, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> i know this topic is pretty much the definition of "bikeshed" ... but
> i agree with the "linux" package ... i don't recall ever writing
> `pacman -S sound` or `pacman -S make-my-monitors-have-a-gui-thingy`
> :-D
You are correct, bikeshed it is, a
2011/5/25 Ray Rashif
> On 26 May 2011 03:15, Mauro Santos wrote:
> > On 25-05-2011 19:36, Ray Rashif wrote:
> >
> >> I agree. I'd like for the package to be called simply 'kernel'. That
> >> fits in with our straightforward approach to package-naming (and
> >> packaging in general). As long as w
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:09 PM, cantabile wrote:
> On 05/25/2011 09:36 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
>>
>> On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baums wrote:
>>>
>>> Linux3.0 can easily cause misunderstandings as Linux is usually used as
>>> a generic term for the whole system, the distros, etc. even if the
>>> c
On 26 May 2011 03:15, Mauro Santos wrote:
> On 25-05-2011 19:36, Ray Rashif wrote:
>
>> I agree. I'd like for the package to be called simply 'kernel'. That
>> fits in with our straightforward approach to package-naming (and
>> packaging in general). As long as we can linguistically correlate the
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:09 PM, cantabile wrote:
> On 05/25/2011 09:36 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
>
>> On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baums wrote:
>>
>>> Linux3.0 can easily cause misunderstandings as Linux is usually used as
>>> a generic term for the whole system, the distros, etc. even if the
>>> co
On 25-05-2011 19:36, Ray Rashif wrote:
> I agree. I'd like for the package to be called simply 'kernel'. That
> fits in with our straightforward approach to package-naming (and
> packaging in general). As long as we can linguistically correlate the
> commands, for .eg:
>
> "I want a kernel for th
On 05/25/2011 09:36 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baums wrote:
Linux3.0 can easily cause misunderstandings as Linux is usually used as
a generic term for the whole system, the distros, etc. even if the
correct naming of the whole system is GNU/Linux and Linux itself
actually
On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Linux3.0 can easily cause misunderstandings as Linux is usually used as
> a generic term for the whole system, the distros, etc. even if the
> correct naming of the whole system is GNU/Linux and Linux itself
> actually is only the kernel.
I agree. I'd li
Am 25.05.2011 18:21, schrieb Yaro Kasear:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:14:55 Sander Jansen wrote:
>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Thomas Bächler
> wrote:
>>> Am 25.05.2011 17:43, schrieb jesse jaara:
This is from recent kerbel mailing list post. A voice inside Torvals
head is te
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:14:55 Sander Jansen wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Thomas Bächler
wrote:
> > Am 25.05.2011 17:43, schrieb jesse jaara:
> >> This is from recent kerbel mailing list post. A voice inside Torvals
> >> head is telling hin that it would be time to go for 3.0 v
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 25.05.2011 17:43, schrieb jesse jaara:
>> This is from recent kerbel mailing list post. A voice inside Torvals head is
>> telling hin that it would be time to go for 3.0 versioning
>
> Everyone, don't get too excited. The reasons for "Li
On 05/25/2011 06:53 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 25.05.2011 17:43, schrieb jesse jaara:
This is from recent kerbel mailing list post. A voice inside Torvals head is
telling hin that it would be time to go for 3.0 versioning
Everyone, don't get too excited. The reasons for "Linux 3.0" are
- "th
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Bernardo Barros
wrote:
> If the 3 will stand the the third decade (as the idea is to make a
> system based on time not features), in 10 years we would have to
> rename it again to 'kernel4'.
>
> :-)
>
But why the 26 or 30 is needed at the end of the package name?
Just 'linux' is the most pure and KISS choice. :-)
On 05/25/11 11:42, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Wed, 25 May 2011 17:38:33 +0200
schrieb Heiko Baums:
I guess the best name is kernel30.
Forgot to mention that the kernel package is called kernel... in every
distro I know.
BTW, Debian and Ubuntu switched to calling their linux-kernel-related
packa
If the 3 will stand the the third decade (as the idea is to make a
system based on time not features), in 10 years we would have to
rename it again to 'kernel4'.
:-)
Am 25.05.2011 17:43, schrieb jesse jaara:
> This is from recent kerbel mailing list post. A voice inside Torvals head is
> telling hin that it would be time to go for 3.0 versioning
Everyone, don't get too excited. The reasons for "Linux 3.0" are
- "the numbers are getting too big" (2.6.40)
- the
On 05/25/2011 05:40 PM, Yaro Kasear wrote:
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:20:46 Bernardo Barros wrote:
Hi there,
There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is
going to be 3.0.
Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to
modify it anyway.
Why not just '
This is from recent kerbel mailing list post. A voice inside Torvals head is
telling hin that it would be time to go for 3.0 versioning
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Yaro Kasear wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:20:46 Bernardo Barros wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is
>> going to be 3.0.
>> Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to
>> modify
Am Wed, 25 May 2011 17:38:33 +0200
schrieb Heiko Baums :
> I guess the best name is kernel30.
Forgot to mention that the kernel package is called kernel... in every
distro I know.
Heiko
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Yaro Kasear wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:20:46 Bernardo Barros wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is
> > going to be 3.0.
> > Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to
> >
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:20:46 Bernardo Barros wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is
> going to be 3.0.
> Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to
> modify it anyway.
> Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since
Am Wed, 25 May 2011 17:26:19 +0200
schrieb Jelle van der Waa :
> When the rumours are over and linux is going to release his first
> rc1, then it would make sense to rename kernel26 to linux3.0.
> Except that the lts version will be still kernel26-lts, so maybe
> kernel3.0 would be better. I'm su
Am 25.05.2011 17:20, schrieb Bernardo Barros:
> Hi there,
>
> There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is
> going to be 3.0.
> Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to
> modify it anyway.
> Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 05/25/2011 05:20 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is
>> going to be 3.0.
>> Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to
>> modify it
On 05/25/2011 05:20 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote:
Hi there,
There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is
going to be 3.0.
Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to
modify it anyway.
Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow
proj
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Bernardo Barros
wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is
> going to be 3.0.
> Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to
> modify it anyway.
> Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since w
Hi there,
There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is
going to be 3.0.
Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to
modify it anyway.
Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow
project 'Arch Hurd' providing 'hurd' as an alternativ
50 matches
Mail list logo
