A little out of order? And why did they skip versions 6 - 94? ;-)
Versions 99-1999? I believe those were the betas of NT 5 ;-)
It gets even more confiusing when you add in WinCE (WINCE), then you have
repetitive versioning :)
On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Ed Yung wrote:
> At this time I don't believe a change in numbers should make a difference
> now because everyone is already looking foward to 2.2 besides version
> number shouldn't really matter when it comes to OSes. . . Figure this
> even Windows 3.0->3.1->3.11 - and each of those had some significant amount
> of changes between the versions so even though 2.2 has improvements and
> changes over 2.0 it doesn't warrant a version change to 3.0. . . Besides
> the main thought to .0 releases are that .0 releases are buggy versions not
> stable. So 2.2 is much more marketable than you think.
> Ed
>
> At 07:56 PM 12/30/1998 -0500, Anthony Barbachan wrote:
> >Have it more sellable is just a nice side effect, my main argument is that
> >the amount of changes and additions to the kernel justifies its version
> >being incrimented to 3.0.0. A .2 upgrade usually denotes a minor upgrade.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Gavin M. Roy <gavinroy@nextpath.com>
> >To: ralf@uni-koblenz.de <ralf@uni-koblenz.de>; Anthony Barbachan
> ><barbacha@Hinako.AMBusiness.com>; Kernel Mailing List
> ><linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
> >Date: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 4:18 AM
> >Subject: Re: I vote for incrimenting the version number to 3.0.0, Re:
> >Linux-2.2.0 (pre1)
> >
> >
> >>Not to mention usually, and I believe in the case of Linux, major
> >versioning
> >>is layed out ahead of time, with certain goals in mind. i.e. the 2.2
> >>kernels have a certain goal-set, the 3.0 kernels have a certain goal set.
> >>Making the versioning "sound" more impressive isn't the goal here. The
> >goal
> >>is to create an organized, stable OS kernel. Than means making a roadmap
> >>and sticking to it.
> >>
> >>My 2 cents, anyway (c:
> >>
> >>Gavin
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: <ralf@uni-koblenz.de>
> >>To: Anthony Barbachan <barbacha@Hinako.AMBusiness.com>; Kernel Mailing List
> >><linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
> >>Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 10:34 AM
> >>Subject: Re: I vote for incrimenting the version number to 3.0.0, Re:
> >>Linux-2.2.0 (pre1)
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 10:07:50PM -0500, Anthony Barbachan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> With all the changes in the upcomming kernel, as well as the time
> >>invested
> >>>> in its development, it seams to me that perhaps we should release it as
> >>>> 3.0.0. 2.2 makes it sound like an incrimental release, not much
> >>different
> >>>> than 2.0.x. Besides which 3.0.0 sounds much more sellable to future
> >>>> potential customers/users who are used to MS's (as well as others') bad
> >>>> habit of taking three versions to get thing right.
> >>>
> >>>Number cosmetics ...
> >>>
> >>> Ralf
> >>>
> >>>-
> >>>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> >>>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> >>>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >-
> >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/