Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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 operating system with numerous improvements over previous versions. We can reasonably expect version 4.0 to be a further improvement in six monts' time, as we can expect of version 4.1 to be the result of a further six month's worth of excellent development effort. That's the way it works. Don't read a lot of other marketing hype into the version numbers. -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/ First, we kill all the spammers The Usenet Bard, Twice-forwarded tales 20:11:56 delilah spamd[26905]: 146.151.48.74: disconnected after 36099 seconds.
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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 I am concern.
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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 after the 2.9 release? Using a little logic it shouldn't be too hard to figure it out... --STeve Andre'
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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 about all the goodies that a 4.x OS would mean. 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. Adam
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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 what will become 4.0. It is going to be a fantastic catastrophy, exactly like what all of you .0 release people expect. Right... Get a grip.
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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 are going to throw all those very large things into what will become 4.0. It is going to be a fantastic catastrophy, exactly like what all of you .0 release people expect. Right... Get a grip. You're been saving Adaptec Promise raidctl, for 4.0, right? Lee
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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 time I would have to type that. And I am not even talking about all the Linux new comer that can't see the difference between 3.7 to 3.8 for example. Now you would required them to read one more digit? That's asking to much... Plus think about all the art work, cd cover, t-shirt, etc. All would become unbalance now. Isn't it the moto is less code is better in OpenBSD. Think about what you are asking here. Put 33% more code in the next release for what And finally, all the passer for the dmesg for the 12K plus in archive would need to be rework to process one more digit. Where is the efficiency in that! Plus: OpenBSD 4.0 (GENERIC) #675: Thu Nov 1 00:00:00 MST 2006 Looks a lot better then OpenBSD 3.10 (GENERIC) #675: Thu Nov 1 00:00:00 MST 2006 Looks to much GNU to me! (: Daniel. PS: Just practicing my sarcasm a bit here.
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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 releases, and now we are going to throw all those very large things into what will become 4.0. It is going to be a fantastic catastrophy, exactly like what all of you .0 release people expect. Right... Get a grip. You're been saving Adaptec Promise raidctl, for 4.0, right? Lee Yes! along with sexd, a new daemon which will support a wide range of teledildonics devices.
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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 number limit. As a consequence, the whole universe will disappear in november 2006. So don't hesitate to order 3.9 CDs -- it may be your last chance. (SCNR) Ciao, Kili
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
* 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. Just thinking about all the goodies that a 4.x OS would mean. 3.A -Bob
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
--- 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, therefore it is not prime. Wrong. You got the definition of what a prime number is wrong. A prime number is defined as a positive integer greater than one which has positive divisors 1 and itself, only. Please note that using your definition 7 is not prime because -7, -1, 1 and 7 all divide 7. I suggest at least looking into elementary number theory before making such statements again. Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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 only be divided by one number, therefore it is not prime. Wrong. You got the definition of what a prime number is wrong. A prime number is defined as a positive integer greater than one which has positive divisors 1 and itself, only. Please note that using your definition 7 is not prime because -7, -1, 1 and 7 all divide 7. I suggest at least looking into elementary number theory before making such statements again. Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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 1x3x3x5 or 1x1x1x3x3x5 or... ?) It would crush many things down about arithmetics. Luckily I have learnt some things during my two year special scientific studies (heard about Classes priparatoires in France ?) and this is one of those.
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
L. V. Lammert wrote: You're been saving Adaptec Promise raidctl, for 4.0, right? That, and NdisWrapper support.
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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 1x3x3x5 or 1x1x1x3x3x5 or... ?) It would crush many things down about arithmetics. Luckily I have learnt some things during my two year special scientific studies (heard about Classes priparatoires in France ?) and this is one of those. Damn you are so elite. Now what does this have to do with OpenBSD?
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
--- 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 only be divided by two different numbers : 1 and itself. 1 can only be divided by one number, therefore it is not prime. Wrong. You got the definition of what a prime number is wrong. A prime number is defined as a positive integer greater than one which has positive divisors 1 and itself, only. Please note that using your definition 7 is not prime because -7, -1, 1 and 7 all divide 7. I suggest at least looking into elementary number theory before making such statements again. 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 1x3x3x5 or 1x1x1x3x3x5 or... ?) It would crush many things down about arithmetics. Luckily I have learnt some things during my two year special scientific studies (heard about Classes priparatoires in France ?) and this is one of those. Point of fact, your definition did /not/ state that a prime number had to be positive. Point of fact, your definition did /not/ state that the divisors must be positive as well. Perhaps you should've spent more time listening in class. Or even just listening to me. Or look it up at mathworld, or wikipedia. They all prove that your definition is *wrong*. Perhaps those classes that you supposedly took should teach something about mathematics aside from just using them. best regards, Reid Nichol We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit. -David Suzuki Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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 to look into same, especially if you think you've already looked into number theory enough to discuss the subject. #1: he didn't say what a number was. We are talking about mathematics, NOT philosophy. In elementary number theory, numbers are usually the set of positive integers, including or not including 0 depending on circumstance. And you even use the usually. Perhaps you should check out the definition of divisibility and what a divisor is before you make such a comment. Even sticking to the positive integers if a divides b (written a|b) if and only if there is an integer d such that ad=b. Notice the work integer in there. Notice the word positive is NOT in there. So, -7 is a divisor of 7 because (-7)(-1)=7. We /must/ restrict the divisors to positive numbers. Which is what the original poster didn't do. Or didn't you notice that? And what does 0 (another special case) have to do with this conversation? #2: these definitions are fluid - by some definitions, '1' *is* prime, and by others it isn't. The question really depends on a particular mathematical writer's view, because it really has no impact on the interesting results of elementary number theory. Really. Point to a reference. Because the wikipedia and mathworld agree with my definition. Not to mention all my professors and every text that I've come across. #3: you are a lot more condescending than your demonstrated knowledge warrants. Deja vu. -- Matthew Weigel hacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Someone who puts hacker into there signature to describe themselves really shouldn't be making such comments. best regards, Reid Nichol We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit. -David Suzuki Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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 Fuestel) Same as Home - Premium, but has all the man pages deleted to save valuable space. OpenBSD Vista - Home Premium Has some of the advances networking features turned off, but don't worry, you don't need them anyway. OpenBSD Vista - Business Same as the current standard OpenBSD OpenBSD Vista - Ultimate Same as Business, but comes with a few multimedia packages included in the base install OpenBSD Vista - Enterprise. Comes in a 15 CD Set. Each CD is only a third full, but it looks impressive and costs 10 times as much.
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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]
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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 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, therefore it is not prime. Wrong. You got the definition of what a prime number is wrong. A prime number is defined as a positive integer greater than one which has positive divisors 1 and itself, only. Please note that using your definition 7 is not prime because -7, -1, 1 and 7 all divide 7. I suggest at least looking into elementary number theory before making such statements again. Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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 1x3x3x5 or 1x1x1x3x3x5 or... ?) It would crush many things down about arithmetics. nobody here is arguing that 1 IS prime. more transparently, the ideal generated by (1) is NOT a prime ideal (it's the whole ring). also, a factorization in a UFD is only unique up to multiplication by a unit. i think 1 is a unit, i'm not sure... :P Luckily I have learnt some things during my two year special scientific studies (heard about Classes priparatoires in France ?) and this is one of those. i assume you also learned about throwing out irrelevant egomaniacal chaff whenever you're feeling insecure about your mathematical inabilities in your advanced courses. how french, how academic!
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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 to the list. Now why is that? --- Matthew Weigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reid Nichol wrote: In elementary number theory, numbers are usually the set of positive integers, including or not including 0 depending on circumstance. And you even use the usually. Perhaps you should check out the definition of divisibility and what a divisor is before you make such a comment. Even sticking to the positive integers if a divides b (written a|b) if and only if there is an integer d such that ad=b. Notice the work integer in there. Notice the word positive is NOT in there. So, -7 is a divisor of 7 because (-7)(-1)=7. We /must/ restrict the divisors to positive numbers. Which is what the original poster didn't do. Or didn't you notice that? And what does 0 (another special case) have to do with this conversation? using the usual definition of prime does require the restriction of potential divisors to the positive integers. this is because, historically, the postive integers were the ring over which number theorists worked, so one needn't consider negative integer divisors. if you'd like to do away with the confusion of such a definition, it's much easier to use the ideal-based definition of prime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_ideal . note that i'm assuming commutative rings here. #2: these definitions are fluid - by some definitions, '1' *is* prime, and by others it isn't. The question really depends on a particular mathematical writer's view, because it really has no impact on the interesting results of elementary number theory. Really. Point to a reference. Because the wikipedia and mathworld agree with my definition. Not to mention all my professors and every text that I've come across. right on, reid! under no circumstances should 1 be considered a prime number: the ideal generated by 1, (1), is obviously not a prime ideal. #3: you are a lot more condescending than your demonstrated knowledge warrants. reid is totally in the right. i didn't sense much condescension, just dropping definitions and such, like any respectable student of mathematics would and should do. cheers, jake
Re: what is next? 3.10 or 4.0???
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.
