Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?

[Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl>]

On 16-07-08 08:55, Rafael C. de Almeida wrote:

> Rene Herman wrote:

>> 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.

I don't. I hate bores.

More importantly though, that's really the kind of thing where you can 
argue about how life should and/or could be until you're blue in the 
face but if it isn't, it doesn't actually matter any. People intimately 
involved with a project like Linux (say, subscribers to this list) 
definitely look quite different at it than others and that's nothing 
bad. Communicating information to these people through shortcuts like 
version numbers isn't necesarily anything to avoid.

There ARE features in the pipeline you could plan for that would warrant 
a version jump. I'd for example consider being able to run X not as root 
a very worthy goal for a version jump (be it 2.8 or 3.0). That's also a 
change in the area where those that are NOT intimately involved yet 
interested in a more than professional way are -- on the desktop.

Really. I'd like it much better if the big cool feature of the all new 
Linux kernel would be running X as user, rather than when the big cool 
feature of X running as a user would require a version of Linux newer 
than the february 2010 release.

If you get what I mean. Do trust me, you'll have time and opportunity 
enough in your lifetime to be boringly professional.

Rene.