But the commit count is just one metric and this year saw 3,694,098 new lines of code and 1,490,601 lines of code removed. That’s comparable to prior years with last year seeing 3.3 million new lines and 1.59 million lines removed… Down from the 5.3 million new lines in 2022 but for 2021 was also in the 3.2 million new line range. So in terms of code activity, 2024 was largely similar to prior years for the Linux kernel, just with far fewer commits.
Yes, I read the article (that’s were my “number of lines” come from…). But does including this in the article make a shitty article any better?
It’s basically “Linux kernel hits record low” (also the title) followed by “but by other metrics it looks different” and then… nothing. No actual analysis, no context. Just randomly presenting numbers (and even admitting their headline metric isn’t worth much) and pretending that’s an article.
This is from the article:
Yes, I read the article (that’s were my “number of lines” come from…). But does including this in the article make a shitty article any better?
It’s basically “Linux kernel hits record low” (also the title) followed by “but by other metrics it looks different” and then… nothing. No actual analysis, no context. Just randomly presenting numbers (and even admitting their headline metric isn’t worth much) and pretending that’s an article.
That’s stupidly lazy…