Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?

["Rafael C. de Almeida" <almeidaraf@gmail.com>]

Rene Herman wrote:
> On 15-07-08 20:04, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
>> Clearly, the 2. prefix has long outlived its usefulness as far as
>> Linux is concerned, and probably the 6 as well.
> 
> Been calling the -stable branches v20, v21, v22, ... here.
> 
> I do believe the numbering scheme should at least ostensibly still be
> feature driven, not be a fully robotic date thing. With the latter, you
> definitely miss out on press-opportunities and that's not even meant
> cynical. There just is a bit of industry around Linux and the promotion
> opportunities of (say) "Linux 3" are really lots, lots bigger than
> anything boringly date based.

And that's why after the adoption of generics and a few things java all
the sudden became java 5. I don't like that. I hope the world gets used
to learning things instead of just being driven by a pretty number. And
I think that not using marketing numbers on a popular software is a good
step into helping people realise that version numbers are meant to keep
track of the changes not to look cool.

> That even holds for things like books -- I just bet that a "all new,
> covers Linux 3!" blurp on the cover sells lots more copies than a "all
> new, covers the march 21st 2009 version of Linux!" one.

I rather just have good books around. I can bet that all -- or at least
most of -- those new "LINUX 3!" books would suck. So it's better if they
sell little or not sell at all.

> But yes, the current monotic increase is definitely getting a bit boring
> as well. The kernel as of 2.6.26 is quite different from the kernel that
> was known as 2.6.0 so just be creative I'd say and set a 2.8 goal. Next
> version can be 2.9 (should be clear enough by then) and then watch world
> domination happen with the big 3.0 release.

Well, if 2.6.0 was 3.0 (2003.0) then people would easily realise that
they're missing 5 years of kernel development. Given that hint, if they
take a look on a few Changelogs they'll soon find out they're missing on
quite a lot.

> Linux 2010.5? Boooooooooring....

Well, it is software versioning and not Gisele Bündchen taking off her top.

> Rene.