GNOME To Start Using Codenames

[phoronix]

Phoronix: GNOME To Start Using Codenames

GNOME has been one of the few key open-source projects using a codename in one form or another, but that's changing...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GNOME-3.18-Starts-Codenames

[duby229]

Fugly 800lb Gorilla.

Oh yeah, That's a good one

[BenjiWiebe]

Michael, perhaps you meant: "GNOME has been one of the few key open-source projects not using a codename in one form or another"? Because if they are one of the few open-source projects using a codename, it doesn't make sense to title your article "GNOME To Start Using Codenames".

[joh22n]

Michael, perhaps you meant: "GNOME has been one of the few key open-source projects not using a codename in one form or another"? Because if they are one of the few open-source projects using a codename, it doesn't make sense to title your article "GNOME To Start Using Codenames".

That was exactly what I thought when reading the article.

[Michael]

Michael, perhaps you meant: "GNOME has been one of the few key open-source projects not using a codename in one form or another"? Because if they are one of the few open-source projects using a codename, it doesn't make sense to title your article "GNOME To Start Using Codenames".

Yeah, missed word 'not'. will update momentarily. thanks.

[Remdul]

I never got this. What's the point of codenames, other than making things confusing for end-users? I understand marketing folks live in their own detached little world, and that it is easier to sell weapons of mass destruction when they don't have descriptive names ("Immoral Atomic Civilian Skin Scorcher v45.33.1" etc), but why *software*? It is very important to know which version is newer or older, especially for security reasons.

I only know I have Linux Mint "something" installed, and Ubuntu "something something" on my other machine, but I have no idea what version number they are, or what their relation are to codenames. I always mix up the codenames, I honestly have no idea what OS versions I installed on my machines. At least for numbers, their order is intuitively apparent; you can't tell from codenames which is older or newer. I know some projects choose codenames by alphabetical order, but the problems is that not all projects do that, so you can't just make that assumption. Oh, what a mess we're getting ourselves in...

The argument that marketeers need to work ahead and sell a (named) product that is still unfinished (still has to go through a number version cycles) is poor one; this has already lead to very poor software quality. I'm old enough to remember when software was released once, and it is still bug-free decades later, without any post-release updates (wasn't possible then; no internets!). So my argument is that codenames are merely a symptom of an overall poor development process; how about refraining from selling (marketing) something that isn't actually ready?!

[Nille_kungen]

Code names only works in recent timeframes but is totaly useless after some times since no one will know which is which.
Version numbers is better since they actually say what the product is.
Only marketing likes naming products.

[TumultuousUnicorn]

It's a big new feature. GNOME will never be the same after that! [/troll]

[AJenbo]

It's good for seporating the development version from the release, that way end users don't end up on a development site. It's also good if you slip a release and end up changing version numbers, i.e. what happened with PHP 6 and Ubuntu 6.04.

[Serafean]

It's good for seporating the development version from the release, that way end users don't end up on a development site. It's also good if you slip a release and end up changing version numbers, i.e. what happened with PHP 6 and Ubuntu 6.04.

No : development versions should be clearly not announced...
My biggest beef with codenames is when I give support to frirends/family : They tell me "Ubuntu Warty Warhog" and I have no flipping idea... I have to dig up when it was released to at least guess the state of the software (2013 means gnome about $((current - 2*$year*2)) or somethng like that ). Codenames make stuff very confusing...