Ubuntu release names/version numbers (was: Debian or Ubuntu?)

[Eric Dunbar]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:19:00 +0100, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) wrote:

> Eric, please don't Cc: me on your replies, I'm already subscribed.

The reason for the cc is the whole BS that was visited recently (and
gets visited every week or two) about reply-to-list vs.
reply-to-sender vs. whatever. Reply-to-all is the only way I'm
guaranteed that a post will actually _make_ it to the list (and, a
whole lot of other people do the same FYI since I regularly get cc:ed
on people's posts)!

> Eric Dunbar:
> 
> > I suggest the Ubuntu team consider relying a little
> > LESS on code names and more on OS versions.
> >
> > Warty, Hoary, Grumpy, Dumpy, Lazy, Larky, Snorey... what's in a name?
> 
> For me? A little of personal touch, plus
> I don't like Ubuntu's version numbering scheme.

It's a personal touch but only of meaning to people who immerse
themselves in it. I like it, but not for real use. For an external
user Warty is going to suggest something amateurish. Microsoft doesn't
market their OSes using code names for good reason -- they add to
version confusion.

Watch and see what happens when there's Warty, Hoary, Grumpy and Wimpy
Ubuntu. Sounds like the beginning of the Snow White story and not an
OS.

> > As a Mac user I find that I'm constantly having to look up
> > what is Panther (10.3), Tiger (10.4), and Jaguar (10.2).
> 
> Looks like they're sorted alphabetically. :o)

I wish! Where's Ocelot going to fit into the list? I want an Ocelot version!!!

> > Anyway, not to rain on the naming parade, but it is a problem to
> > rely on cute names a little too much since cute names don't contain
> > historical information like 10.4 or 5.10, and, they're going to be
> > coming fast an furious (every six months).
> 
> In official documents - by all means, use the official numbering.

When you have two different numbering/naming conventions you run into
confusion. Since Apple has absolute control over the OS _and_ has a
very seamless update path (update checking is on by default) there's
less of an issue with versioning.

> > Microsoft keeps the same name for an OS for at least two years.
> 
> 3.11 -> 95 -> 98 -> 98SE -> Me -> XP for desktops,
> NT 3.51 -> NT 4.0 -> 2000 -> 2003 for servers.
> I wouldn't make an example of it.

Somewhat logical though! 95 - released in 1995, 98 - 1998, 98 Second
Edition (updated version of 1998), Millennium edition (how to sucker
people into buying a downgrade), XP - who knows, maybe the naming crew
were AD&D nuts ;-P

> > In Ubuntu, although the naming convention of year.month is logical,
> > it is not a logical progression! 4.10, 5.4, 5.10, 6.4, 6.10, etc.
> 
> First, it's 4.10, 5.04, 5.10, 6.04, 6.10 etc.
>
> Second, in Linux world the numbering schemes are generally different
> than in Windows world. In Windows, you'd have 5.1, then 5.11, then 5.2;
> in Linux, it's 2.6.9, 2.6.10, 2.6.11. Personally, I like the Linux
> numbering scheme much more, and it's less restrictive (after 2.99
> you simply go to 2.100); I also don't like the artificial bloating
> of version numbers (hello, Slackware), and I don't like version numbers
> based on dates - but I can understand people who see some benefits there
> (I don't agree with them, though).

I prefer more "organic" versioning to the artificiality of Ubuntu. If
an update doesn't provide a serious change the version number change
ought to be minor (e.g. kernel updates).

I'm no great fan of the mega version numbers in Linux. It makes it
look a tad technical (perhaps that's what the version numberers are
going for... a little ego padding to say, "look, I released 99
previous updates to this app b/c I wasn't patient enough to put the
updates into less frequent updates ;).

Ah well, I'm sure Canonical's marketing dep't will eventually have to
reign in version numbering/naming. Just thought I'd point it out since
it seems to be on the cusp of becoming unwieldy.

Eric.