Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th Aug 2005 15:23 UTC
NetBSD This bootable ISO image contains NetBSD 3.99.7 and allows you to boot NetBSD/i386 -current without having to install to a hard disk. The LiveCD was initially intended to be a rescue cdrom, but is now capable of much more. KDE-3.4.2 and all kde3-i18n packages were included.
Thread beginning with comment 18373
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Lazarus on Mon 15th Aug 2005 16:45 UTC
Member since:

That has to be the worst numbering scheme ever thought up.

I know it's really a minor thing, but I expected better from these folks...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ugh
by Alwin on Mon 15th Aug 2005 20:28 in reply to "Ugh"
Alwin Member since:

"That has to be the worst numbering scheme ever thought up."

I thought it weird too, using 3.99.x numbering when 3.0 isn't even out. But that release map a previous poster points to, clears things up:

For development that is going to be 3.0, a 2.99.x numbering is (or rather, was) used. <3, but newer than other 2.x releases. Then a branch is forked, and *that* branch is feature-frozen, and further stabilized/bugfixed into 3.0 release candidates.

At that point, numbering is bumped from 2.99.x to 3.99.x, and development continues on features that are to 'disruptive' to even make it into not-yet-released 3.x. So that's development aimed at some future 4.x release.

Confusing at first, but makes a lot of sense if you aim for quality releases, and simultaneously work on bleeding-edge stuff. So I'd say these NetBSD folks DO know what they're doing.

For contrast, compare with Linux: *really* experimental stuff essentially on hold, since no 2.7 development branch. Ofcourse people can do very experimental stuff, but only in their own backyard. And some less experimental, but not widely tested stuff is thrown into 2.6.x releases, leaving it up to users that compile their own kernels, to discover what breakage occurs, and how stable each new 'stable' release really is. IIRC this policy was changed recently, but we still have to see how that works out.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ugh
by Lazarus on Tue 16th Aug 2005 03:17 in reply to "RE: Ugh"
Lazarus Member since:

My point was, I guess that is if something needs to be explained, it's not intuitive. This numbering system falls easilly into this category.

Reply Parent Score: 1