Re: Version Numbering

On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> 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?

really !,
they don't have *any* idea of the version of the kernel, they know
about redhat 4, redhat 5 and so on...

glibc ? what is that ?
is not something they use... :-)

sure, we know better, but the common guy in the computer field, does
not read every mailing list on earth...

> In fact perusing dpkg -l output the *only* software package I find
> that bumps the major version every single release is Emacs. It stands
> out as an outlier as soon as you say version 23 -- and that was
> despite a hiatus when version 18.59 was the newest release for years.

imho, emacs does it rigth...

regards,
/sak