IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Will there ever be a Linux kernel version 3.0.0?
New Who cares?
Its just a number.

3.0.0 means *what* to you? Windows look alike?

Lets look at your beloved GNOME and its sane defaults.

Will there ever be a v3.0.0 GNOME? Currently it at something like: 2.28.something...
New It's not "my beloved GNOME" and hasn't been for a long time.
I haven't run Linux-on-the-desktop for about 6 years. I periodically install an Ubuntu or Mint image, just to see if it's within 10 years of OS X, and it never is.

Anyway, that's a good question. Will there ever be a GNOME 3.0? Not that I particularly give a shit, as it's a collection of software I rarely use and never in anger. But what will the next desktop zeitgeist? Will KDE and GNOME merge? Will a third way emerge? Will Apple release Aqua and Cocoa under LGPL when the mythical and oft-touted Marble UI appears?

So, will there be a Linux 3.0.0 or not? Has Linux reached its kernicular apotheosis? Or is it just incremental crawls forward from this point forward (i.e. 2.6, 4 years ago)? Everything's got a lifespan; the current kernel and userland is surely what you'd call "middle-aged" and the question was designed to prod folk into speculating about whether there's a paradigm shift in Linux's future, what it might be, and whether we'll finally get GPLed flying cars.

So talk about that, instead of trying to needle me about a pile of software I haven't used for half a decade.
New I think there might.
But I suspect for a really wierd and unlikely reason, say, a major license change, or (less likely) a major framework change.

Wade.

Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
New A friend did Version Numbers as digits of "e" for a while.
E.g. Version 2.718
Version 2.7182
Version 2.71828

Etc.

No, he never did a Version 3.0 ;-)

As for Linux, dunno. But 'never' is a long time.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Heh, funny. What other good numbers are there to use?
I suspect having version 3 followed by 3.1, then 3.14, and so on up to 3.1415926[...] would be TOO obvious, and make the whole thing too "cutesy".

So are there any other kewl only semi-famous numerical constants one could use in stead? (Avogadro, Planck...?)

Oh well, maybe the whole notion of copy-catting the idea is too pathetic in the first place... :-(
New There are several.
Pi is good because it's 3.x. e is good because it's 2.x. If you need a 1.x, then the next obvious is phi (the golden ratio), 1.618.

You could use square roots of 2, 3, 5 for 1.414, 1.732 and 2.236.

Others that look good are Sierpiński's constant is 2.585, Lévy's constant is 3.276, Feigenbaum constants of 4.669 or 2.503.

Wade.

Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
New Tex is pi, METAFONT is e
http://en.wikipedia....re_versioning#TeX
--

Drew
     Will there ever be a Linux kernel version 3.0.0? -NT - (pwhysall) - (7)
         Who cares? - (folkert) - (1)
             It's not "my beloved GNOME" and hasn't been for a long time. - (pwhysall)
         I think there might. - (static)
         A friend did Version Numbers as digits of "e" for a while. - (Another Scott) - (3)
             Heh, funny. What other good numbers are there to use? - (CRConrad) - (2)
                 There are several. - (static)
                 Tex is pi, METAFONT is e - (drook)

Holy cran.
49 ms