I can’t even begin to explain how wrong this is.
Version numbers mean jack all. Look at Firefox 4-12 for example. There’s hardly any noticeable difference between consecutive versions, because of the rapid release cycle Firefox changed to. If you compare Firefox 3.0 with Firefox 4.0, you’ll see a world of difference. Let’s look at Windows now: Windows 95 has an internal version number of 4.0, Windows 2000 has an internal version number of 5.0, and Vista has an internal version number of 6.0. You can’t tell me that the progress between versions of Windows is comparable to versions of Firefox.
Onto the compatibility argument. For any OS to be successful, it needs applications. Like it or not, Haiku is a reimplementation of BeOS, and as such, is required to be compatible with BeOS applications. The downside to this requirement is that it needs to support a rather outdated version of GCC (by 12 years, much shorter than your 20 years, which actually predates the public release of BeOS by about 5 years anyway). If you don’t like it, use a GCC4 nightly, but don’t come moaning to the devs when none of your applications work. The official releases are GCC2/4 hybrids anyway, so apps can be written and executed for either GCC version anyway. (WebPositive being a good example of a GCC4 application).[/quote]
I was thinking about an answer, all I have to answer on your first part is: and so what? Do you think that Firefox decided to begin crazy numbering cause they were tired? or because people is dumb and want to hear high version number? Above all Haiku needs attention: pubblic attention, dev’s attention and perhaps one day software house attention. We’re not talking about a lib, that can be version 0.0000018 and none cares. We’re talking about an OS…
Second part: I thought that Haiku was meant to take the “inheritance” of BeOS and taking it further. Do Haiku want to have a wider user base? Well, you cannot think that people using GNU/Linux, or Windows, or MacOSX will try apps that were written almost ten years ago.
Then, if Haiku wants only to become the clone of BeOS, and this will take three years more, sorry, I misunderstood everything in my life. If, let’s say, in one year Haiku devs will release a R1, how can I advice my friends to try an OS that has not a real plan for a better R2 in few times and how can I tell them to play with an almost incomplete browser, no office app, no drivers, some old audio tools, almost no recent vlc release?
Anyway, perhaps I’m not talking a good enough english for people to comprehend me, so, here’s what I’m asking:
R1: drivers, wpa, pkg manager, documentation. Release Jenuary (of an imaginary year 1).
R2: switch to GCC4, complete web browser, initial release of office. Release June (year 1)
R3: complete office, x64 initial support (don’t know what else). Release January (year 2)
And so on. Here’s what I’m seeing:
R1: complete web browser, complete drivers, initial office, stability, documentation, initial GCC4 switch, works on ARM, pkg manager, wpa, java… Release don’t know when.
Wouldn’t it be easier? Make a plan, take new and old devs, work on feature, release. I’m not asking the moon, I don’t care if there will be 14 release in 7 years to have a complete and stable OS, but at least when I’m following blogs, web sites, forums about Haiku I could always see where it is and where it is going.
Am I crazy or what? I follow loads of projects, everyone works like this, from text editor to KDE, from web browser to linux kernel.
EDIT: only Debian has a slow release cycle but, ok, they have a huge user base and a huge attention…