I am curious how SUSE decides when a version goes from X.0 to Y.0. e.g. SUSE 9.0 was more, I think a buniness decision. SUSE 10.0 was due to the step to openSUSE. I can see no real technical reasons (anymore) to keep this up. I also believe that it might confuse people. Some people say that they stay with 9.3, till 10.1 comes out, because they do not trust .0 releases. I think that 10.0 is closer to 9.3 then 10.1 is to 10.0 and that 10.1 is more of a new line then 10.0 was. So will SUSE keep these version numbers and if so what are the decisions to go to 11 (It goes to eleven :-) I personally would drop the numbers and go with dates. e.g. `SUSE 2005 Spring` instead of SUSE 10.1. houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau
houghi wrote:
I personally would drop the numbers and go with dates. e.g. `SUSE 2005 Spring` instead of SUSE 10.1.
numbers are good if used as they need I already said some time ago than 10.1 is more an "11", given the new update system. and I'm not sure this was a good decision, because the debugging seems very hard :-( anyway, if SUSE Linux shall be out at regular pace (said 8 month last time), why not a date. However, the Mandriva system of one major issue by year seems not so bad, it could be better to have a better bugfix on the stable branch and keep unstable some months more testing jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://dodin.org/galerie_photo_web/expo/index.html http://lucien.dodin.net http://fr.susewiki.org/index.php?title=Gérer_ses_photos
Op zondag 16 april 2006 13:00, schreef houghi:
I personally would drop the numbers and go with dates. e.g. `SUSE 2005 Spring` instead of SUSE 10.1.
Or use lizard types/sorts instead. I assume there are enough lizard types out there, to give out to suse distro's for the coming 10 years.... -- Richard Bos Without a home the journey is endless
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 01:47:58PM +0200, Richard Bos wrote:
Op zondag 16 april 2006 13:00, schreef houghi:
I personally would drop the numbers and go with dates. e.g. `SUSE 2005 Spring` instead of SUSE 10.1.
Or use lizard types/sorts instead. I assume there are enough lizard types out there, to give out to suse distro's for the coming 10 years....
The confusion with names instead of dates or periods is that people have no idea what is a newer version, unless they look it up. As an example I will use flower names¹, because I am unaware of any lizard names. Can you imagine the amount of questions that will ask: What should I download, the Rose, the Tulip or the Butterfly? And then the answer is: The Lilly. Don't download the Lotus, because that one is Alpha. ¹http://www.earthlypursuits.com/FlwrsPer/FlowerYear/FloraMeaningA-F.htm So there could be an explanation, but it still would not stop the questions. ;-) houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau
I think it's the numbering is very logical. Only for 10.x it was a bit out of tune. X.0 is the pre new kernel version. 8.0 was pre 2.4 kernel (2.4 was test kernel) 8.1 was 2.4 kernel 9.0 was pre 2.6 kernel (2.6 was test kernel) 9.1 was 2.6 kernel My opion 10.0 was pre red carpet and other novell tools 10.1 has al this inside. An ofcourse the market made them move to 10. Solaris 10, Mandriva 10, Redhat 10 etc. I personally prefer numbers as the dat or some wierd name doesn't mean anything to me. x.1 id newer than x.0. That is very clear. Look the latest version up on the internet. I hope SuSE will never move to NT, 2000, XP, Vista etc. Instead of 4.0, 4.1, 5 and 5.1? (May be an option might be an odd and even sceam like with the kernel, odd is test/unstable even is stable?) Regards, Joop. On Sun, April 16, 2006 1:00 pm, houghi wrote:
I am curious how SUSE decides when a version goes from X.0 to Y.0. e.g. SUSE 9.0 was more, I think a buniness decision. SUSE 10.0 was due to the step to openSUSE.
I can see no real technical reasons (anymore) to keep this up. I also believe that it might confuse people. Some people say that they stay with 9.3, till 10.1 comes out, because they do not trust .0 releases.
I think that 10.0 is closer to 9.3 then 10.1 is to 10.0 and that 10.1 is more of a new line then 10.0 was.
So will SUSE keep these version numbers and if so what are the decisions to go to 11 (It goes to eleven :-)
I personally would drop the numbers and go with dates. e.g. `SUSE 2005 Spring` instead of SUSE 10.1.
houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 04:46:08PM +0200, Joop Boonen wrote:
I think it's the numbering is very logical. Only for 10.x it was a bit out of tune.
X.0 is the pre new kernel version. 8.0 was pre 2.4 kernel (2.4 was test kernel) 8.1 was 2.4 kernel 9.0 was pre 2.6 kernel (2.6 was test kernel) 9.1 was 2.6 kernel
Please do not toppost. It is incorrect. 8.0 was 2.4.18 and 7.3 was 2.4.9., 7.1 was 2.2 as was 6.4 Then 10.0 should have been called 8.3 or even lower as 4.3 It also is very illogical. 0 should never be the last, it should be the first. <snip>
I personally prefer numbers as the dat or some wierd name doesn't mean anything to me. x.1 id newer than x.0. That is very clear. Look the latest version up on the internet.
I also would not like a name. Or at least not ONLY a name. It should be someting that identifies the date.
I hope SuSE will never move to NT, 2000, XP, Vista etc. Instead of 4.0, 4.1, 5 and 5.1?
2000 is OK as a name if you publish it in 2000 and it is the only version coming out that year.
(May be an option might be an odd and even sceam like with the kernel, odd is test/unstable even is stable?)
That is not the case anymore. Oh! Another way of numbering could be using the first few digits of the Unix time. :-) Just see wich ones are needed to determine the month or period of the month and have the rest asued to be filled with 0. houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau
houghi wrote:
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 04:46:08PM +0200, Joop Boonen wrote:
I think it's the numbering is very logical. Only for 10.x it was a bit out of tune.
X.0 is the pre new kernel version. 8.0 was pre 2.4 kernel (2.4 was test kernel) 8.1 was 2.4 kernel 9.0 was pre 2.6 kernel (2.6 was test kernel) 9.1 was 2.6 kernel
Please do not toppost. It is incorrect. 8.0 was 2.4.18 and 7.3 was 2.4.9., 7.1 was 2.2 as was 6.4 Then 10.0 should have been called 8.3 or even lower as 4.3 It also is very illogical. 0 should never be the last, it should be the first. <snip>
I've already dsent a correction. 7.0 was pre 2.4. I think 7.0 would have been 2.4 and 9.0 would have been 2.6. But the finale release didn't match the planned date. So this would have persponed the release.
I personally prefer numbers as the dat or some wierd name doesn't mean anything to me. x.1 id newer than x.0. That is very clear. Look the latest version up on the internet.
I also would not like a name. Or at least not ONLY a name. It should be someting that identifies the date.
I hope SuSE will never move to NT, 2000, XP, Vista etc. Instead of 4.0, 4.1, 5 and 5.1?
2000 is OK as a name if you publish it in 2000 and it is the only version coming out that year.
What is the advantage of numbering with the year? Only M$ uses names. I haven't heart any objections for Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, Netware, MAC OS X.
(May be an option might be an odd and even sceam like with the kernel, odd is test/unstable even is stable?)
That is not the case anymore.
Oh! Another way of numbering could be using the first few digits of the Unix time. :-) Just see wich ones are needed to determine the month or period of the month and have the rest asued to be filled with 0.
houghi
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 01:00:47PM +0200, houghi wrote:
I am curious how SUSE decides when a version goes from X.0 to Y.0. e.g. SUSE 9.0 was more, I think a buniness decision. SUSE 10.0 was due to the step to openSUSE.
I can see no real technical reasons (anymore) to keep this up. I also believe that it might confuse people. Some people say that they stay with 9.3, till 10.1 comes out, because they do not trust .0 releases.
I think that 10.0 is closer to 9.3 then 10.1 is to 10.0 and that 10.1 is more of a new line then 10.0 was.
So will SUSE keep these version numbers and if so what are the decisions to go to 11 (It goes to eleven :-)
Its only a marketing issue, nothing else. Ciao, Marcus
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 09:29:34PM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 01:00:47PM +0200, houghi wrote:
I am curious how SUSE decides when a version goes from X.0 to Y.0. <snip> Its only a marketing issue, nothing else.
OK, thanks. houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau
On 4/18/06, houghi
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 09:29:34PM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Its only a marketing issue, nothing else.
OK, thanks.
I quite like what Ubuntu uses which is the year, followed by the month eg 5.10 is version released October 2005. No dispute, no confusion, easily identify how old a release is without using the blatant Microsoftish year labels. Although Suse Linux 6.04, might be a bit confusing at this point. Peter 'Pflodo' Flodin.
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:49:50AM +1000, Peter Flodin wrote:
I quite like what Ubuntu uses which is the year, followed by the month eg 5.10 is version released October 2005. No dispute, no confusion, easily identify how old a release is without using the blatant Microsoftish year labels.
Although Suse Linux 6.04, might be a bit confusing at this point.
2006.04 Oh well, as it is a marketing thing, it is really not that important. Or use a bit more fantasy: http://www.calendarhome.com/converter/ :-) I would go for the Mayan or the Bahá'í one. The French Republican one is also nice. houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau
participants (6)
-
houghi -
jdd -
Joop Boonen -
Marcus Meissner -
Peter Flodin -
Richard Bos