> On the subject of dot.zero release, did you also notice that there is > never > a dot.two release? Always new versions. New versions typically have a > price increase on the MLC, whilst new releases do not.
I don't know that there's any particular rhyme or reason to the numbering scheme. There was a huge debacle with IMS V2.2 in the mid '80s that cost several high-end customers $$ millions. V2.2 was going to be the release that finally got the V1.3 customers to migrate and I suppose it eventually was, but there were lots of bodies left in its wake. IBM seemed a bit twitchy about release numbers for a while after that but memories fade. If you picked any digit at random you could probably make the case that they either do or do not favor that digit. I don't think there's any significant corporate consciousness behind choosing those numbers. > My experience has been that every even numbered version of DB2 has brought > with it significant problems. The succeeding odd numbered version has > little new function, but did make the new function from the even numbered > version that had many problems with it work. Even numbered releases tend to be the ones that bring in the biggest chunks of new function and the odd releases tend to be the cleanup releases, but even that isn't carved in stone. In any case, lots of new function almost always equals lots of new problems. CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
