I believe that versioning by year number was fine until they started moving it from one product line to another.
Windows NT 4.0 -> Windows 2000 Windows 98 SE -> Windows ME I believe it was done purposely to confuse users. I can live with RH switching to an integer based versioning system, but as soon as I see a "RH 2003" which is upgraded by "RH XP" I'm jumping ship. -Steve -----Original Message----- From: Emmanuel Seyman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 5:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RHCE certifications and how current they are - answer below On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 02:52:39PM -0600, Rigler, Steve wrote: > > MS's version numbering system is so screwed it doesn't even deserve > mention (am I a version number, a year or a 2 letter buzz-phrase?). To their credit, I think Microsoft had a good idea when they started using the year instead of a version number. Let's face it, at this point, they had completly screwed up the version numbers of their applications ("Hey, let's give all the Office apps the same version number, regardless of the technical merits of doing so") so the new scheme made sense. Of course, they then started screwing up the year numbers by issueing second editions, service packs, hotfixes and what have you. Emmanuel -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
