I recall the next version after 13 was going to be 42 to be more in line with the enterprise release.
Now I read that "The next major version of openSUSE Leap after 42 will be openSUSE Leap 15. This aligns openSUSE version numbers with SLE, which will also use 15 for the next major release. " https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Roadmap
I read part of the closed thread, “What about openSUSE versions 14 to 41 ?”. Some statements were that 42 was a completely different product than 13. So is 15 more like 13? Or did someone make a mistake or have better thought of the naming process?
I guess it doesn’t really matter, but seems confusing to say it’s better in line and now again it’s better in line to go back…
> I recall the next version after 13 was going to be 42 to be more in line
> with the enterprise release.
> Now I read that "The next major version of openSUSE Leap after 42 will
> be openSUSE Leap 15. This_aligns_openSUSE_version_numbers_with_SLE,
> which will also use 15 for the next major release. "
> https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Roadmap I read part of the closed
> thread, “What about openSUSE versions 14 to 41 ?”. Some statements were
> that 42 was a completely different product than 13. So is 15 more like
> 13? Or did someone make a mistake or have better thought of the naming
> process?
>
> I guess it doesn’t really matter, but seems confusing to say it’s better
> in line and now again it’s better in line to go back…
I’ve posted it somwhere in the forums already but let me post it again. There is a hillarious article about the issue on lwn.net: https://lwn.net/Articles/720924/
On 2018-04-03, dt30 <dt30@no-mx.forums.microfocus.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, thank you. That is very clear. Hindsight might be to have called
> 42 something like openSUSE-Temp. But that wouldn’t look so good.
Since Leap came out in 2015 at a time when openSUSE chose a yearly release cycle, it would have been much better to call
it openSUSE 15 - an opportunity lost …
Thanks. Guess I came late to the issue and wasn’t the only one wondering why the numbering changeback. I had looked in the past but for some reason couldn’t find any talk about it. I wonder if that was about the time the website changed things so it was harder to find where to download the development software. After several attempts I did find 15 is going to be released in a couple of months and could download a release, but not sure I could easily do it again. I bet there was talk about the home page being modified, too.
The whole reminds me of SUN Microsystems. Their Unix was named SunOS. But sales decided to go for something new: Solaris. That being what it was, we systems managers still used
uname -a
to find out what was running on which of our systems. And, lazy as computer people are, that was automatically forwarded to our reporting web site that was used by management. At Sun those who looked after the numbering of versions were not impressed by their sales department and went stubborn on counting further in (and with the SunOS name) versions.
The first step was that SunOS 4.n was called Solaris 1.n by managers/sales.
A second step was taken when Solaris 2.7 (aka SunOS 5.7) was simply called Solaris 7.
All the time uname was still reporting SunOS and the old major.minor release numbering. And for us, simple minded software technicians, that was the only truth because the system itself said so.
As our management, specially when talking to thje customer, could not cope with our reports still saying things like SunOS 5.1), we had to write a little piece of code:
# 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}"
(Where OSN is from uname -n and OSR is from uname -r, thus EEN has the major release number and TWEE the minor one. Take care, uname was/is a bit different on those systems, it is not providing kernel information, but OS information.)
Puting the result on the web site for managers made everybody happy lol!
Ah a prime example of code overhead introduced by marketing I guess it happens in any big company with a history. Red Hat had some funny versioning change at a time as well. I’m sure getting the story behind the names/numbers of AMD/Intel CPUs, Nvidia GPUs would be an interesting read.
Or, we could degenerate into a “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” discussion about time and a warped Universe … >:)
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
“Forty-two,” said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.
On 04/04/2018 01:26 AM, glistwan wrote:
>
> hcvv;2861503 Wrote:
>>
>>
>> Puting the result on the web site for managers made everybody happy lol!
> Ah a prime example of code overhead introduced by marketing I guess
> it happens in any big company with a history. Red Hat had some funny
> versioning change at a time as well. I’m sure getting the story behind
> the names/numbers of AMD/Intel CPUs, Nvidia GPUs would be an interesting
> read.
>
>
3 days ago, it was decided to just name it “Windows 10”, but that name had
already been taken.
I guess it happens in any big company with a history. Red Hat had some funny versioning change at a time as well. I’m sure getting the story behind the names/numbers of AMD/Intel CPUs, Nvidia GPUs would be an interesting read.