Re: [opensuse] SUSE version naming
Correction 8.x should be 7.x (kernel 2.4) 8.0 was because of kde 3.0 Regards, Joop. On Sun, April 16, 2006 4:46 pm, 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
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 04:51:18PM +0200, Joop Boonen wrote:
Correction 8.x should be 7.x (kernel 2.4)
8.0 was because of kde 3.0
Please do not toppost. So this makes it even more confiusting. A n.0 for a new windowmanager (soon Gnome new versions as well) but a n.1 for a new kernel. So does a n.0 or a n.1 mean something significant has changed? Or both? Or neither? 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:
So does a n.0 or a n.1 mean something significant has changed? Or both? Or neither?
the usual use all over the net is to have X.x with X for major change ans x for only bugfixes change why not stay to this? or go back to this :-) in other way, upgrade from X.1 to X.2 or even X.56 should be no problem, when upgrade from X to X+1 should me made by new install 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
jdd wrote:
[...]
the usual use all over the net is to have X.x with X for major change ans x for only bugfixes change
why not stay to this? or go back to this :-)
According to your link in the signature, you're working at a university. Maybe you're not familiar with a marketing department. I can assure you: dealing with a marketing department can be - well, call it - challenging (maybe frustrating would be a better way to express it). The guys from the marketing department usually live in their own world and don't care (much) about the technical side of the whole project (at least most of the time). These are my experiences, but I guess that it is similar at SuSE or Novell. Just a simple example: I know quite a lot of computer magazines that are published on a monthly basis. Accordingly, they have 12 issues a year. So from a "technical" point of view, it would make sense to publish issue no. 1 early January, issue no. 2 early February, and so on. However, to obtain a strategic advantage, somebody decided to publish issue no. 3 already mid of February, and not early March. When people now go to a shop, they see issue no. 3 of magazine A side by side with issue no. 2 of magazine B. Guess what they will choose to buy! ;-) So a whole battle started and the issue numbers and publication dates have meanwhile become completely out-of-sync (well, I have seen some improvements concerning this topic over the last years). Another example: why do you think AMD specifies its CPUs as "3800+" although it's maybe only a 2.6 GHz CPU? Marketing... Back to Linux: I think that the version numbers of SuSE distributions were not always driven by "technical" aspects but by marketing instead (at least partly). And, maybe, they still are. When RedHat releases an Enterprise server 10, Novell needs also something with a version number 10 at the end of the day. And so on. In summary: the whole topic about version numbering is more complicated than one might think as it has of course some commercial side-effect. This list is mainly looking at this topic from a "technical" point of view. But in order to come up with a solution that suits everyone (if it's going to be changed at all), one needs to include the marketing guys in this discussion... Cheers, Th.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thomas Hertweck wrote:
jdd wrote: ... Back to Linux: I think that the version numbers of SuSE distributions were not always driven by "technical" aspects but by marketing instead (at least partly). And, maybe, they still are. When RedHat releases an Enterprise server 10, Novell needs also something with a version number 10 at the end of the day. And so on.
Exactly.
In summary: the whole topic about version numbering is more complicated than one might think as it has of course some commercial side-effect. This list is mainly looking at this topic from a "technical" point of view. But in order to come up with a solution that suits everyone (if it's going to be changed at all), one needs to include the marketing guys in this discussion...
100% ACK.
It's totally useless to discuss/drive that here, IMO it's outside of our
scope of action and influence.
That's something the Novell marketing dept decides, and I don't see them
discussing this with us.
Pointless, let's discuss things we can actually have influence on or do
ourselves.
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 01:24:01PM +0200, Pascal Bleser wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thomas Hertweck wrote:
jdd wrote: ... Back to Linux: I think that the version numbers of SuSE distributions were not always driven by "technical" aspects but by marketing instead (at least partly). And, maybe, they still are. When RedHat releases an Enterprise server 10, Novell needs also something with a version number 10 at the end of the day. And so on.
Exactly.
If they are only sometimes followed by technical aspects, what were they?
In summary: the whole topic about version numbering is more complicated than one might think as it has of course some commercial side-effect. This list is mainly looking at this topic from a "technical" point of view. But in order to come up with a solution that suits everyone (if it's going to be changed at all), one needs to include the marketing guys in this discussion...
100% ACK.
It's totally useless to discuss/drive that here, IMO it's outside of our scope of action and influence.
That's something the Novell marketing dept decides, and I don't see them discussing this with us.
Pointless, let's discuss things we can actually have influence on or do ourselves.
I beg to differ. First I would like to hear what the decision process is. Just saying 'oh, we can't change is' is not something I am just accepting like that. I will accept it when somebody from SUSE (or Novell Marketing) tells me that THEY decide and not us and that we have no say in it. So what is the decision making here? Just look at the competition and then follow them? Is it all 100% marketing, or is there some technical choice as well. If it is all marketing, why do we not have SUSE Linux 11.0? 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 houghi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 01:24:01PM +0200, Pascal Bleser wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thomas Hertweck wrote:
jdd wrote: ... Back to Linux: I think that the version numbers of SuSE distributions were not always driven by "technical" aspects but by marketing instead (at least partly). And, maybe, they still are. When RedHat releases an Enterprise server 10, Novell needs also something with a version number 10 at the end of the day. And so on. Exactly.
If they are only sometimes followed by technical aspects, what were they?
They're never.
In summary: the whole topic about version numbering is more complicated than one might think as it has of course some commercial side-effect. This list is mainly looking at this topic from a "technical" point of view. But in order to come up with a solution that suits everyone (if it's going to be changed at all), one needs to include the marketing guys in this discussion... 100% ACK.
It's totally useless to discuss/drive that here, IMO it's outside of our scope of action and influence.
That's something the Novell marketing dept decides, and I don't see them discussing this with us.
Pointless, let's discuss things we can actually have influence on or do ourselves.
I beg to differ. First I would like to hear what the decision process is.
For what ? You assume marketing and sales has to do with a process. That's a wrong assumption IMO ;)
Just saying 'oh, we can't change is' is not something I am just accepting like that. I will accept it when somebody from SUSE (or Novell Marketing) tells me that THEY decide and not us and that we have no say in it.
It's like that, because it's 100% marketing in my experience: 9.0 was a 8.x 9.1 was a 9.0 10.0 was a 9.4 10.1 was a 10.0
So what is the decision making here? Just look at the competition and then follow them? Is it all 100% marketing, or is there some technical choice as well. If it is all marketing, why do we not have SUSE Linux 11.0?
Because it's SLES 10 and SLED 10, I guess.
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 01:58:45PM +0200, Pascal Bleser wrote:
I beg to differ. First I would like to hear what the decision process is.
For what ?
Currisosity.
You assume marketing and sales has to do with a process. That's a wrong assumption IMO ;)
That is what other people are telling. I do not know, that is why I ask.
Just saying 'oh, we can't change is' is not something I am just accepting like that. I will accept it when somebody from SUSE (or Novell Marketing) tells me that THEY decide and not us and that we have no say in it.
It's like that, because it's 100% marketing in my experience:
This contracticts what you said above.
So what is the decision making here? Just look at the competition and then follow them? Is it all 100% marketing, or is there some technical choice as well. If it is all marketing, why do we not have SUSE Linux 11.0?
Because it's SLES 10 and SLED 10, I guess.
Well, why do not have a SLES and SLED 11 then? (You must have seen that one comming from a mile away) The question is very simple. Who decides on version numbering and why is it done in the way it is done in the past. 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
Pascal Bleser wrote:
That's something the Novell marketing dept decides, and I don't see them discussing this with us.
if they do something completely counter productive, why should we not point it? we share the user point of view. 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
Thomas Hertweck wrote:
it's going to be changed at all), one needs to include the marketing guys in this discussion...
I know this. and I wont use technical arguments in front of marketing people. But I you say to them that clients are upset by they system, may be you can have an answer. Mandrake started the year number system. I beg the 2007 one is nearly released :-) but it's better than nothing :-) I would be satisfied by a "SUSE Linux Kaiman (10.1)" (for example), even if the number is very small on the box :-) 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
participants (5)
-
houghi
-
jdd
-
Joop Boonen
-
Pascal Bleser
-
Thomas Hertweck