I was joking of course, about version numbers. That's why I added the [OT]. Funny, but it is a common knowledge that M$ apps become usable after their third version, and starting NT from 3.x didn't change that paradigm. I have the feeling that The Hurd will be fine WHEN and IF it is finally released as a stable OS, regardless of numbering.
Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, Dovix wrote: > Numbering is really not an issue. See, it can always > start at 3.0 as the first stable version. That > practice worked quite well with NT ;) > > By that time Linux may still be at 2.8, and if for > some reason Linus will decide to go for the magic > Number 3.0, Hurd can launch as Hurd 2005 ... > Maybe I did not express myself correctly, but I was only using the numbering as an indication for stability and maturity. Hurd does not have a stable release yet, and when it does it will be much less mature than the current Linux (or even perhaps a Linux kernel version some time back). And judging by the time the Hurd is progressing in comparison to the time Linux does, one can assume a similar situation will always prevail. > btw, did anybody ACTUALLY try The Hurd? There's even > (or was) a Debian iso for it. > Check: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/message/87 It's the best I can find now. Regards, Shlomi Fish --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
