I think the article handles well the message that version numbers are meaningful for users, and that developers should be a bit more careful with them.
Thankfully in Linux’ case this is simple to solve, given the developers aren’t prone to make backwards incompatible changes. Just keep the 5.x series indefinitely. (Sorry Torvalds, I know you only got 20 fingers/toes, but…)
Reading that article hurt my head, it’s so poorly written and even has glaring factual errors that makes me wonder why this person took on writing a Linux article in the first place.
Linux 2.4 was the stable release, not 2.3.
Proofreading, people!
So no more LTS kernal release. Am I getting it right?
The kernel community also continues to support long-term support releases on behalf of cautious users (5.14 is the latest LTS), even though they feel such releases are redundant, even harmful. The team back-porting fixes to LTS versions for the six years following the release. But these tend to create “Frankenkernels,” Levin says, which are not really any more stable the latest versions.
Yeah, pretty much. I also interpret it that they go basically the Microsoft way and at some point will deliver micro-patches, hotfixes and then rollout major kernel releases.