Going back to the roots, SCCS (and RCS) enforced major, minor and update releases – the version number was/is of the form “n.m.u”, where “n” is the major release number, “m” is the minor release number and “u” is the update release number. We (naturally) numbered the major releases sequentially 1, 2, 3, . . . and, most of the tools operating on the version management systems also assumed this methodology.
But, there is nothing in the SCCS, RCS, Subversion setup which prevents major version numbers being non-linear – it’s really only the branching for minor and update releases which may misbehave if those version numbers are following non-linear schemes.
Plus of course, the project management tools which are working on top of the version management system.
Modern physics copes quite happily with the explanation of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional systems but, the application of mathematical algorithms and CPU power can deliver results which produce a 4-dimensional view . . .
Assuming of course that the package uses a version nomenclature which is a character string – most version control/management systems however, use integer values . . .
This is not so unique an occurrence, so why should clients object? Everyone took it in stride when Windows went from W3.11 to W95 to W98 to WME to W2000 to WXP (left the numbers off because they were not sure which numbers came next) to WVista to Server 2000 and Server 2003, then back from 2000 and 2003 to … W7 (which, last time I looked, falls between 3.11 & 95), then W8, then (was there a W9?) W10, which is still way back between 3.11 and 95, well below 2000 & 2003 (did I miss any?).
But their internal numbers were sequential. They didn’t suddenly go from WINVER 98 to 8: ver (command) - Wikipedia
It’s all about scripting and expectations, now we have to browse through all of our stuff to make sure there are no expectations that version numbers are higher than X because we can no longer rely on it and if any scripts take a peek at os-release and rely on stuff there, they break horribly.
I won’t make any effort wrt impartiality on this topic. I’m here on this forum because I enjoy using this openSUSE distribution and getting help here,and also helping out here, is in part my way of contributing.
I’ve been with openSUSE since ~2001 and without question from my perspective, even with the occasional hiccup along the way an excellent job has been done, and I appreciate all the efforts of those who have contributed to the distro. The community is great and I anticipate I will still be using the distro for another ~16 years, if i am still alive in 16-years (with old age creeping up).
wrt the versioning, I think Fraser_Bell made an excellent point - and I note also the philosophy behind Microsoft Windows is significantly different from that of GNU/Linux distributions like openSUSE - which to me makes a big difference in how different approaches are selected.
Further I have a VERY STRONG opinion, that bad mouthing any GNU/Linux distro on its own help forum, and I do not care which distro, is counter productive in a open source world where contributions and motivation to provide the contributions is key.
There are many tactful ways in which one can get help and influence things without being counterproductive and being unpleasant. Having been a moderator for over a decade I can truthfully say we have seen many non-contributors who are incredibly disruptive come and go. Hopefully they went to an OS is better for them - although in many cases (seeing them reappear on other GNU/Linux forums) the same character of being unhappy shines through. On each forum they go to, they glow with good posts for a short time - and then they complain and distro hop, most the time never contributing themselves.
We have openSUSE forum here for the openSUSE distro and NOT for other distributions. I do happily note there are MANY more generic GNU/Linux forums (and other distribution forums) for those who wish to use distributions other than openSUSE. There are many great GNU/Linux distributions,and I think there being many GNU/Linux selection possibilities is great - and something to rejoice about. I hope all take advantage of this selection possibility and politely and in a friendly manner use the distribution that suits one best - no matter what what the label may be for some version. Note I emphasize politely and friendly.
I’m glad to see effort and thought being put in to the versioning selection.
And wrt computer operating systems, for me - the selection is clear. openSUSE.
I’m not a “technical” guy, somewhere between average and advanced end-user maybe. I’m more in to management the last 20 years. I still have a lot of IT-related issues on my desk.
I must growing soft, this is the second time in a short period that I agree with rbrown(chairman) :P. From my point of view the thought of streamline numbers between SUSE and openSUSE is a advantage in the long run. Maybe “Leap” should be taken out as well. On the other hand it leaves the field open for new projects ( i e openSUSE “newproject” 15.x). Also SUSE have SLES and SLED with the same version number.
I know how hard it is to take decisions and defend them. There is always people that are whining and ranting what ever direction the decision went.
As fare as i know I will continue to use openSUSE for a foreseeable future. It works for me and have this excellent forum .
(I have read all the post in the mailing list as well today).
It is always strange to change version number during its development and also when it is still officially presented.
So please update information about roadmap for currently upcoming openSUSE release at
It’s a sequential number that almost everyone in software development uses - well, except here because distribution numbering had to be “funny”.
On top of that, literally every other Linux distribution uses sequential numbering, either through internal versions or quarterly releases. I honestly can’t name a single one that doesn’t do so.
Oh I get it, you can only give feedback on something if you are actively involved it.
Remember that the next time you think about saying something bad about, let’s say, politicians.
Oh yes. I will say something bad. Latest the su… and not able to run Dolphin(KDE) as root. It was a rage and the numbering contents / change in openSUSE.
No, I’m a user. Still I don’t I have to buy that ****…
> oldcpu;2821280 Wrote:
>> most the time never contributing themselves.
> Oh I get it, you can only give feedback on something if you are actively
> involved it.
>
> Remember that the next time you think about saying something bad about,
> let’s say, politicians.
OSS is a meritocracy - and as such, those who do get the most say - and
that is different than other things (like politics).
You’ve been around long enough to know that, and conflating those two
things is a disingenuous tactic intended to inflame only.
Take a break or move on. Being disruptive here isn’t going to help you
make your case.
A case in point - because without doubt it was missed - and generally speaking this is true in general in life and not restricted to GNU/Linux.
Most of the time positive feedback in a polite helpful manner, accompanied by an effort to help, typically accomplishes a lot more than ranting complaints without contribution. And while this is especially true in an opensource development environment where progress is made by real contributions - as noted it is true in life in general. This is my guiding philosophy.
