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