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 >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
