I think they should just start using binary for version numbers.
Last edited by deanjo; 10-18-2008 at 05:53 PM.
Okay... I change my vote to THAT.
Originally Posted by deanjo
i don't like it at all. Just keep it simple like today. Whats wrong with having a 2.7.x, 2.8.x, 2.9.x, 3.0, etc. It is simple and we can clearly see which version is newer.
Hmmm... I for sure would like something different than 2.6.xxx. Given how long "2.6" is around this prefix doesn't give much information anymore. How "old" e.g. is 2.6.13? Well, it's like "14 versions old", which give a rough idea of "outdated", but if this is how versions are compared one could just as well drop the "2.6" and call it "Linux 27", "Linux 28", ... which looks pretty stupid.
So I'd definately appreciate the year (and if possible/meaningful month, too) to be in the version number, so one can relate to it on a human scale.
This would be a big step in the wrong direction and really should be resisted. The current linux versioning scheme reflects the actual work, the actual technical milestones, and the relative stability of the kernel. Do I care what year and month it was released? No, because with this model of development progress is measured in work and innovation accomplished not predetermined product shipping deadlines.
Those people who wish to replace 2.6.27 with "linux 2008 SP3" need to have their heads examined.
Last edited by khaije1; 10-25-2008 at 01:45 AM.
Originally Posted by SavageX
Sorry, don't mean to sound like a troll with this reply but why doesn't Nexiuz follow this scheme then?
Originally Posted by khaije1