Great debate: Linux by the numbers

[cloverm]

Linus Torvalds and other central Linux programmers are debating whether the next version of the operating system should be numbered 2.6, or if its new features merit the grander designation 3.0.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-960573.html

[stryder144]

Interesting article. It high lights some problems, in my eyes.

1. Numbering convensions...people place too much emphasis on what version number they have, then complain because it is not what they felt it should be. It's stupid. Why do people feel that they need 3.x.x? Do the 2.6.x thing. Then the 2.8.x. Then, when we have reached that point, we can hop up to 3.x.x. People want a standard method of naming the kernel version. They understand that x.oddnumber.x means that it is a development version. They understand that x.evennumber.x is a (generally) stable version. What the average pc user doesn't understand is when a software company or project jumps from, say, 2.2 to say, 2.6 without there being a 2.4 (or whatever, you get the idea). It's not intuitive enough. That can, strangely enough, turn people off. We don't want that.

2. Due to the increased focus on Linux in the media, we are seeing a lot of less than stellar press. People don't need to know that there is a debate amongst the programmers regarding something so silly as versioning schemes. It's rediculous. This debate, minor as it is, can and probably will have a negative effect. Joe Bag-O-Donuts wants to know that everything is peachy-keen. If Sun is having money problems, Joe won't buy a server since he will fear that Sun can't support him in the future. Same thing here. If there is negative press, then it sullies the reputation of Linux in general.

I hate seeing such silliness. It makes me mad. I guess I am just jealous about Linux. I want Linux to be the true golden child of the computing world. I want it to be the great messiah. I fear that such petty differences will turn others off to my little "religious" experience. Nuff said.

Cheers

[Frith]

[quote author=stryder144 link=board=19;threadid=5196;start=0#51194 date=1033650543]
I hate seeing such silliness. It makes me mad. I guess I am just jealous about Linux. I want Linux to be the true golden child of the computing world. I want it to be the great messiah. I fear that such petty differences will turn others off to my little "religious" experience. Nuff said.

Cheers
[/quote]

As long as there are people out there who want to turn Linux into the next Microsoft(RedHat, Mandrake, etc.), Linux will never become the messiah.

That is, unless you're thinking of noncommercial distros like Debian that truly beat the pants off of Windows and RPM-based distros.

they should number it 10.4 and call it raugaj .

[Frith]

[quote author=Sarah31 link=board=19;threadid=5196;start=0#51248 date=1033702907]
they should number it 10.4 and call it raugaj .
[/quote]

Hehe.

[Schotty]

Well, I may be in the minority but this is what I was taught in programming class and project management.

You start off with a new project, and it is a .1 at that point. Once you get the basic goals of the project done, its a 1.0. After that, to go to 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, etc, you need to have a major change in the functionality/code to warant this NEW VERSION. Not a bugfix neccesarily, but like a revamped UI, an new algorithm that gives a 45% speed increase, like that.

As far as I can tell, its a tossup here. 3.0 may be an appropriate, but by the same acounts 2.6 can be. So as my education has taught -- 2.6 shall be the new version. If we are that close, the 2.7 tree can be for 3.0. There should be enough new improvements implemented with non-beta code to warrant a version (not revision) increase by then.