Ubuntu 2006 Spring Collection

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Henrik Nilsen Omma">

> Apple have done it the other way around with OSX. Their semi-techy version
> name is a simple progression of numbers 10.1, 10.2, ... which is already
> much simpler than our scheme, and then they have names of big cats to be
> used as marketing terms that are even simpler and more sexy.  Tiger,
> Panther, etc.

So, I actually argued for something like this when we first started talking
about version numbers pre-warty. What I wanted to see was version numbers
that actually *meant* something in technical terms - of binary compatibility
and so on. On top of that, we could call releases what we wanted, whether it
was dates, animals, fun park rides, whatever. Because fundamentally, a name
is just a name, and is important for image and so on.

Turns out, this is what Apple does. 10.x means something, and 10.x.x means
something - to software developers and administrators. Plus they have funky
names for everyone else.

- Jeff

-- 
FOSDEM 2006: Brussels, Belgium                    http://www.fosdem.org/2006
 
                       Wake up and smell the penguin.