On Friday 11 March 2011 16:30:00 Per Jessen wrote:
Refilwe Seete wrote:
Numbering a release 2011.03 provides the reader with useful, accurate information...In this case when it was released.
Or the release# of that year.
Even this is more accurate information than the current system provides.
Conversely, naming it openSUSE 11.4 seems to provide useful information but that information is not accurate. The number implies the fourth update of major version 11.0.
Only if you (wrongly) assume that we have a major.minor versioning scheme. If you are aware that that is not the case, "11.4" will imply the fourth update of major version 11.0.
All of the likely 'outsider' assumptions are incorrect. Major.minor, Year-Month, Month-Year... all completely incorrect. Is that a good thing?
Although I understand the need to be a distinct distro, I don't see why we should continue with a confusing numbering system to do so.
Certainly our community, development philosophy, unique tools, and brand are enough to keep openSUSE distinct.
No, not to the end-user we are targetting. Apart from the brand, none of that is important to the end-user. Not even the technically savvy.
I don't completely agree here, but I'll accept your train of thought and ask some questions within its bounds. Would such end-users be helped or informed by a numbering system that does not correlate to anything they are familiar with? Put another way, how does having our current arbitrary numbering system help us with such users? Shouldn't we want to be distinct in meaningful ways (like YaST) rather than obscure, arbitrary ways? We could also distinguish between releases by toying with our capitalization - "Download openSUSe, our newest release and successor to openSUsE" - but that's not a meaningful way of distinguishing ourselves, nor is it helpful to outsiders. Refilwe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org