It's Astounding...

[Sirin]

It's astounding, you guys released the first version of ubuntu a year ago, and now, one year later, you're already working on version 6. You guys must be working on Ubuntu 24/7. It took iTunes four whole years to get to version 6 from version 1, and you've already released version 5 in under 6 months.

How do you do it?

[Stormy Eyes]

Actually, it's really only version 3. Ubuntu 5.10 just means "Ubuntu GNU/Linux as of October 2005". Ubuntu 6.4 means "Ubuntu GNU/Linux as of April 2006." I think there's a more detailed FAQ explaining Ubuntu's version numbering scheme elsewhere, but I don't know off the top of my head where it is.

[dbott67]

And you think the Y2K problem was bad... just what the heck are the developers going to do in October of 3005!

They're either going to have to re-use version numbers, or worse, they'll have to resort to "marketing" the new Ubuntu Vista XP 3005.10 2^32 bit version (code-named Greasy Grizzly).

[Sirin]

No offense, but why try the same move that Linspire did? Start out at such a high version?
Why not start at '1'?


Actually, it's really only version 3. Ubuntu 5.10 just means "Ubuntu GNU/Linux as of October 2005". Ubuntu 6.4 means "Ubuntu GNU/Linux as of April 2006."

That's nice, but was a month-based version count really necessary (No Offense)?

[Stormy Eyes]

No offense, but why try the same move that Linspire did? Start out at such a high version? Why not start at '1'? That's nice, but was a month-based version count really necessary (No Offense)?

I think it makes sense to number releases by date instead of some arbitrary number, but I don't work for Canonical, Ltd. or speak for anybody but myself.

[dbott67]

Actually, one of the Ubuntu developers provided the reasoning behind using the date as the version convention. I'm paraphrasing here, but the main point was this:

The Ubuntu distribution is not a wholly-controlled and developed set of applications; it is a compilation of many other applications that are developed by different vendors. By using the date as the version numbering convention, users could have a good idea of what versions of various software packages would be included (i.e. which version of Gnome, OpenOffice, and various other apps and libraries).

-Dave

[matthew]

No offense, but why try the same move that Linspire did? Start out at such a high version?
Why not start at '1'?

That's nice, but was a month-based version count really necessary (No Offense)?

Necessary? No. I do think it is clearer than the "regular" numbering system in use by most software which is totally arbitrary. What constitutes a major number change versus a point change? It's up to the whim of the developer. In Ubuntu's system you know how OLD the version is. That's nice. I have no idea the age difference between Fedora 3 and Fedora 4...etc.

[Goober]

Actually, I kinda like the number, or, I guess, the number-date system. Its logical, and, well, kinda cool. Just different, I guess.

[raublekick]

one of my favorite bands is the F***ing Champs. They have three albums titled "III", "IV", and "V". Why start at III? Part of their reasoning (or so I hear) is that Led Zeppelin started at "I", but the Champs are better than Zeppelin.

Ok, maybe the Ubuntu team isn't trying to mock the OS world's numbering scheme, but as long as the next version has a higher number than the previous one it makes sense. And every Ubuntu release will be X.04 or X.10, so all you have to decipher is the year and spring or fall.

[Brunellus]

No offense, but why try the same move that Linspire did? Start out at such a high version?
Why not start at '1'?



That's nice, but was a month-based version count really necessary (No Offense)?

Necessary? No. Useful? yes.

[pinoyskull]

for me i like the version numbering Ubuntu is using, it is easy to track :)

[gord]

after i learned of ubuntus version numbering system i started to number all my little software things like that, its just so much easyer to keep track of. I meen, in a year iv no idea where version 0.512.0312 is, but version "5.3" is something you can actually place.

[Sirin]

So, if say, an application started in 2009, and they use the Time-Based numbering scheme, at it's first release, it would already be at version 9? H'mm. Nice. :)

"Sarpis Media Player 9 - Our First Release". :D

[Brunellus]

So, if say, an application started in 2009, and they use the Time-Based numbering scheme, at it's first release, it would already be at version 9? H'mm. Nice. :)

"Sarpis Media Player 9 - Our First Release". :D
as I recall, Gentoo's distribution version numbering convention is based on year, as well.

In general, I wish this kind of numbering would gain greater currency. My other hobby is photography, and, since I am also a cheapskate, I tend to shop for used lenses.

Generally, you can get a fair idea of a lens's capabilities and condition by examining the serial number. For most lenses/manufacturers, however, this is an arcane exercise, since serial numbers are not generally documented. However, it is trivially easy with equipment made in the USSR, since the first two digits of any s/n are the two digits of the year of manufacture. It's definitely one thing that GOSPLAN got right.

[dbott67]

So, if say, an application started in 2009, and they use the Time-Based numbering scheme, at it's first release, it would already be at version 9? H'mm. Nice. :)

Well, if the Ubuntu developers started writing applications (as opposed to compiling a distribution), they would probably start at 0.x --- pretty much like every other developer.

However, the problem is that they are taking different versions of software from different vendors and combining them to form a distribution. Keeping this in mind, how do they refer to each new release of Ubuntu? By using a time-based version system, as well as releasing predictable & timely updates, it makes it easy to figure out which versions of libraries and applications are included (within a version # or so, as each vendor would have different release schedules that may not co-incide with the Ubuntu release).

So, rather than thinking of Ubuntu as a 'version number', think of it as a 'release number'.

-Dave

[UbuWu]

So, if say, an application started in 2009, and they use the Time-Based numbering scheme, at it's first release, it would already be at version 9? H'mm. Nice. :)

"Sarpis Media Player 9 - Our First Release". :D

You mean like Windows 95/98/2000? ;)