Bryan Brake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if the x.x.x versioning is followed 4.0 would mean there is a major
upgrade to the OS, while 3.10 is minor updates.
Some of us *cough* argued going to hex numbering for the version
following 2.9 would be an excellent idea.
OpenBSD 3.9 is a great
Bryan Brake wrote:
if the x.x.x versioning is followed 4.0 would mean there is a major
upgrade to the OS, while 3.10 is minor updates.
Just thinking about all the goodies that a 4.x OS would mean.
Bryan
What was it before. 2.9 to 3.0 or to 2.10???
Each release have major changes as far as
On Friday 03 March 2006 15:29, Bryan Brake wrote:
if the x.x.x versioning is followed 4.0 would mean
there is a major upgrade to the OS, while 3.10 is
minor updates.
Just thinking about all the goodies that a 4.x OS
would mean.
Bryan
This was beaten to death five years ago. What happened
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 12:29:46 -0800 Bryan Brake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if the x.x.x versioning is followed 4.0 would mean
there is a major upgrade to the OS, while 3.10 is
minor updates.
Hmm, I wonder if this question was asked 5 years ago when 2.9 was
the latest release...
Just thinking
Yep, the developers magically do more in the 6 months preceding 4.0
than the 6 months preceding any other release. That's definately how
it works.
We've been holding back about 50% of our work for each of the previous
4 releases, and now we are going to throw all those very large things
into
At 02:04 PM 3/3/2006 -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Yep, the developers magically do more in the 6 months preceding 4.0
than the 6 months preceding any other release. That's definately how
it works.
We've been holding back about 50% of our work for each of the previous
4 releases, and now we
This was beaten to death five years ago. What happened after the 2.9
release? Using a little logic it shouldn't be too hard to figure it out...
Plus it is in the OpenBSD efficiency model too! Typing 4.0 is shorter
then typing 3.10. That's 33% more text to type. My finger would be tied
each
L. V. Lammert wrote:
At 02:04 PM 3/3/2006 -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Yep, the developers magically do more in the 6 months preceding 4.0
than the 6 months preceding any other release. That's definately how
it works.
We've been holding back about 50% of our work for each of the previous
4
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 12:29:46PM -0800, Bryan Brake wrote:
Just thinking about all the goodies that a 4.x OS
would mean.
a) 4 is the first non-prime, at least according to factor(6).
b) you need three bits for the number 4, so the 4.x release will
bust the current two bit major version
snip
b) you need three bits for the number 4, so the 4.x release will
bust the current two bit major version number limit.
snip
this is the best response so far. LOL!
--Bryan
* Bryan Brake [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-03 13:39]:
if the x.x.x versioning is followed 4.0 would mean
there is a major upgrade to the OS, while 3.10 is
minor updates.
Why would 4.0 mean that? where does it say that.
Unmitigated horseshit - and OpenBSD release is an openbsd
release.
--- Jean-So?=bastien Bour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthias Kilian a icrit :
a) 4 is the first non-prime, at least according to factor(6).
No, it is 1 :)
Explanation : a prime number can only be divided by two different
numbers : 1 and itself. 1 can only be divided by one number,
Reid Nichol a icrit :
--- Jean-So?=bastien Bour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthias Kilian a icrit :
a) 4 is the first non-prime, at least according to factor(6).
No, it is 1 :)
Explanation : a prime number can only be divided by two different
numbers : 1 and itself. 1 can
L. V. Lammert wrote:
You're been saving Adaptec Promise raidctl, for 4.0, right?
That, and NdisWrapper support.
No no not wrong, indeed I didn't talk about being positive. But being
prime is being positive (should have said it I agree) and have EXACTLY
TWO different divisors. And if 1 were prime you wouldn't have only one
unique decomposition in prime numbers ;) (for exemple, is 45 = 3x3x5 or
--- Jean-SC)bastien Bour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reid Nichol a icrit :
--- Jean-So?=bastien Bour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthias Kilian a icrit :
a) 4 is the first non-prime, at least according to factor(6).
No, it is 1 :)
Explanation : a prime number can
I find it interesting that you didn't send this entirely condisending
superior reply to the list. Now why is that?
--- Matthew Weigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reid Nichol wrote:
I suggest at least looking into elementary number theory before
making such statements again.
You might want
Come on.
Hasn't the OpenBSD marketing department caught on yet.
OpenBSD XP or OpenBSD Vista is the obvious choice.
Like Windows Vista, there could be 5 versions of OpenBSD Vista.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/versions/default.mspx
OpenBSD Vista - Home Basic. (aka. Vista Home, Dave
OpenBSD Vista - Home Basic. (aka. Vista Home, Dave Fuestel)
Same as Home - Premium, but has all the man pages deleted to save
valuable space.
LOL! there could be a special mailing list for Vista users: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Original message
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 00:19:33 +0100
From: Jean-Sibastien Bour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
To: misc@openbsd.org
Reid Nichol a icrit :
--- Jean-So?=bastien Bour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthias Kilian a icrit :
a) 4
Original message
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 19:04:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
To: Matthew Weigel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: misc@openbsd.org
I find it interesting that you didn't send this entirely condisending
superior reply
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Reid Nichol wrote:
I find it interesting that you didn't send this entirely condisending
superior reply to the list. Now why is that?
because it is off topic. Please stop this thread, which has nothing
to do with OpenBSD anymore.
22 matches
Mail list logo
