Re: Version Numbering

On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 17:00 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Sergio A. Kessler
> <sergiokessler(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > on every single planet of the universe, except the one called
> > "postgrearth", whose inhabitants breathe sql and eat messages from
> > postgresql mailing lists... :-)
> >
> > most people I know, think 8.1 is just 8.0 with some fixes...
>
> Really? is Linux 2.6 just 2.5 with some fixes? Glibc 2.Was Windows 3.5
> just 3.4 with some fixes? Gnome 2.28 just 2.27 with some fixes?

Thank you for this. It validates something that has been nagging me.

Do you really think the majority of users even know what kernel they are
running? They don't. They know they are running Ubuntu or Fedora. They
probably know the version but they have no idea what version of the
kernel that is being run.

PostgreSQL is a user space project. Yes we have a solid core of -hackers
but our wider use is a place where hackers don't exist. User space
developers do. I.e; PHP people.

Reminder, there was no Windows 3.4 or Windows 3.5. Yes it does matter.
There was:

3.1x
3.11 for Workgroups
Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4.0
(I am ignoring ME)
Windows XP

There was *NEVER* a Windows NT 4.0.x, there was Windows NT 4.0 SP2.

The semantics are important. People mock Microsoft but except for some
notable blunders (Windows ME, splurt) they are very, very good at
getting mind share.

> Here is the Gnome project's description of what's new in 2.28 (over
> 2.26, the previous public release):

Gnome is a bad example. People barely know if at all they are running
Gnome. They are running Ubuntu.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt