I’ve read the roadmap for Open Suse and it’s not clear what will happen & why.
I see here:
https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Roadmap#Upcoming_openSUSE_Leap_Release
that the next version will be called “Leap 42.1” instead of Open Suse 13.5 or Open Suse 14.0
If the name of the distribution was rebranded, then why start from the number 42? Why not from 1?
What is the logic in this?
Thank you!
You might rightfully think that everything in ICT is based on logic. But maybe this isn’t.
Or is it? Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Wikipedia
I see. So that’s the logic.
If SUSE tries to “Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life” with this release then they better keep the good work on the same level in the future. Since the answer is 42, they must keep it for a long time 
Naming the first version 42.1 is already using 1/10 of possible names. I assume that they will not count backwards too. A number like 42.001 seems more appropriate for this version.
Seriously now, this is a ****ed up decision. If somebody feels the need for jokes, they should be making it in a forum or some other media.
The brand Open Suse is very strong also. It’s insane to give up the brand. And the numbering scheme seems to be the result of an irresponsible 10 year old thinking.
I actually use Linux (at present Suse) 100% of the time. I need it stable and very serious as it has always been. If I am in a need for jokes, I watch Mr. Bean. Jokes with my computing platform? No, thank you, I don’t need that.
If Open Suse devs don’t take themselves seriously, why would anybody take them seriously?
Maybe it’s time to move to Ubuntu again.
Think of these as marketing names.
I remember that there was solaris 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 (and 2.5.1), 2.6. Then solaris 2.6 was abruptly renamed to solaris 6.
Going further back, I used slackware. I think it was at version 4.1. The next version to come out was 7.0.
People complained. Patrick (the distro organizer) explained that he was playing catchup with version numbering for other versions. He promised that he would never do it again – unless a similar situation arose.
Use of marketing names seems to be common.
Note that I am just a user. Nobody asked for my advice on naming.
Yes, that was a stupid marketing joke. And
uname
still reported the old version numbering, even far beyond Solaris 6.
Thus we, being technicians, reported certain systems as running SunOS to the frustration of some (including our Sun Microsystems contact people rotfl!).
In one reporting tool we even programmed to calculate the marketeer’s Solaris version from computer factual SunOS version:
# SunOS
elif ${OSN} = SunOS ]]
then print "${OSR}" | IFS='.' read EEN TWEE
if (( EEN > 4 ))
then OSN="Solaris"
(( EEN -= 3 ))
OSR="${EEN}.${TWEE}"
(( TWEE > 6 )) && OSR="${TWEE}"
fi
REL="${OSR} ${OSV}"
This covers even two steps. The first from 4.x to 5.1 the name changed from SunOS to Solaris and 5.1, etc. should be 2.1, etc.
The second started with SunOS 5.6, 5.7, … wich using the above changed to Solaris 2.6, 2.7, …, but that must be changed further leaving out the 2. prefix, makiing it Solaris 6, 7, etc.
Silly marketing people >:)
Since when have devs taken themselves seriously? Why do we have less when a certain other OS has more?
SUSE’s first release was 4.2 by way of a tribute to the answer to everything. That is why SUSE releases have always been higher numbers than RedHat even though they started around the same time. Leap 42 may be a bit precious but at least it is in the spirit of SUSE.
On 09/26/2015 03:16 PM, hcvv wrote:
>
> nrickert;2729799 Wrote:
>>
>> I remember that there was solaris 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 (and 2.5.1),
>> 2.6. Then solaris 2.6 was abruptly renamed to solaris 6.
>>
> Yes, that was a stupid marketing joke. And
>
> Code:
> --------------------
> uname
> --------------------
>
> still reported the old version numbering, even far beyond Solaris 6.
>
> Thus we, being technicians, reported certain systems as running SunOS
> to the frustration of some (including our Sun Microsystems contact
> people rotfl!).
>
> In one reporting tool we even programmed to calculate the marketeer’s
> Solaris version from computer factual SunOS version:
While it seems they were just merely hiding the “old version” it wasn’t hidden.
If Sun had wanted SunOS to track with Solaris, they could have, but they didn’t.
Most people at Sun understood the difference… If they didn’t they were
probably very “new”.
Well why should your opinion be taken seriously when you fail to represent the brand correctly, as “openSUSE”. 
Sorry to barge in like this, but:
How long will Leap versions be supported? I read it’s LTS, but can’t find the info on how long.
Thanks.
At least 36 months for 42.x’s. See this Wiki page: Archive:42.1 - openSUSE Wiki