[ubuntu-uk] What's in a name?

[Grant Sewell]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 22:13:03 +0100
Alan Bell wrote:

> On 11/06/11 21:06, (:techitone:) wrote:
> >
> > Windows is a familiar word. It's releases have progressive names, 
> > Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7. They sound cool.
> not to me, they sound confused. 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 95, 98, NT, 2000, ME,
> XP, Vista, 7. That is a complete and utter mess, far from progressive
> it totally fails to form any kind of coherent progression.

The Windows naming convention is totally baffling.  There have been 2
main "branches" of Windows - DOS based and NT based.  The naming scheme
seems to be a bit off on both sides:
DOS based:
 + Windows 1
 + Windows 2
 + Windows 3
 + Windows 3.1
 + Windows 3.11
 + Windows 95
 + Windows 98
 + Windows ME
NT based:
 + Windows NT 3.1
 + Windows NT 3.5
 + Windows NT 4.0
 + Windows 2000  (NT version 5.0)
 + Windows XP    (NT version 5.1)
 + Windows Vista (NT version 6.0)
 + Windows 7     (NT version 6.1)
 + Windows 8     (NT version 6.2)

It is completely non-sensical.

> > Mac OS X 'sounds' cool. Its big cat release names sound powerful.
> > Lion is soon to be released and is very cheap. This is cool.
> Well Oneiric Ocelot is a big cat name, although I suspect "Oneiric"
> will perplex and befuddle the vocabulary challenged. Anyhow, once
> released it should in theory be referred to by the release number,
> e.g. Ubuntu 11.04.

I have to admit that I've kinda gone off the development names of
late.  I liked some of the earlier ones, but I really think we could
have done better than "oneiric ocelot".  I know the development name
shouldn't be used post release, but considering the codename is used in
several places inside an Ubuntu release itself (let along all over the
Internet) it would be a shame to deny the name.

Grant.