From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757569Ab1KJO7I (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:59:08 -0500 Received: from mail.elliptictech.com ([209.217.122.41]:38572 "EHLO mail.ellipticsemi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752214Ab1KJO7H (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:59:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:59:02 -0500 From: Nick Bowler To: =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Pinot Cc: LKML Subject: Re: Evolution of kernel size Message-ID: <20111110145902.GA13619@elliptictech.com> References: <20111110143333.GA29457@comet.deepsky.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20111110143333.GA29457@comet.deepsky.org> Organization: Elliptic Technologies Inc. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2011-11-10 23:33 +0900, Jérôme Pinot wrote: > I took some time to make a graph of the evolution of the size of the > linux kernel tar.bz2 since version 1.0 till 3.1 (297 releases). > It doesn't count the stable branches (2.6.x.y). > > Impressive, it's mostly exponential. > If dev keeps same pace, we should break the 100MB at > linux 3.19. > > You can get the graph on my blog, I provide the data and the > gnuplot batch file for graphing/fitting: > http://ngc891.blogdns.net/?p=92 > > It may interest some people :-) What scale did you use for the horizontal axis? I see numbers assigned to each version in your gnuplot file, but no indication of how you came up with them. Cheers, -- Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)