Might I suggest we adopt the brilliant Ubuntu numbering system, or at least fix the new system so that the major number reflects the year? If we did that, the version numbers would be: 11.2, 12.1, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 15.1, 15.2. Not great either, I suppose, but having releases every 8 months with no major-minor version divide does make designing a good numbering system a challenge.

If users are really interested in an LTS release they can always roll their own version like centos. But OpenSUSE is desktop oriented and I like that about it.

That said, I don’t think they put sufficient thinking into the newly announced numbering scheme. It sounds nice and all except for one thing: in the XX.Y scheme, the XX too closely resembles the year BUT it actually does not reflect the year number. That will cause a lot of confusion in media and people. For example, 12.1 will be released in November 2011, inevitably suggesting that it will be the first release ready for year 2012 (just as in a 2012 model car). 12.2 also makes sense as it’s gonna be in July 2012 but 12.3 will sound like “well it’s actually in series 12 but couldn’t make it in year 2012″. Then, 13.1 will start the real confusion: it’s almost year 2014, why then 13.1.

See what I mean, it’s virtually impossible to break the connection between the current numbering scheme and the actual year/time the releases will happen, AND the (perceived) inconsistency will throw a lot of people off. I just don’t understand how they couldn’t see this handicap (I guess the decision relied on programmers and engineers, rather than people who understands marketing and branding, no offense). Still, I don’t think it’s too late to make yet another change, for the sake of OpenSUSE brand.

Hate it or not, Ubuntu actually nailed it. XX.YY in their numbering scheme perfectly reflects the release time without creating any hierarchy between the releases and any expectations as to a certain release will be major while the rest is minor.
OpenSUSE can do this too, even with 8-month cycle, and the numbering scheme does not have to reflect the year (anybody can check the calender for that). Take for example a numbering scheme based on the release month: X.Y where X is either N (for November), J (for July) or M (for March), and Y is a number indicating the order in each (release month) series. Specifically, the next release in November 2011 would be OpenSUSE N.1. Then, July 2012 release would be J.1, March 2013 would be M.1, and November 2013 would be N.2 (as in “the second November release”). Think with an open mind and you’ll see that this scheme makes perfect sense as the releases will happen only in those three months and this way you’d be creating November release series, July release series and March release series, appropriately numbered and completely detached from the year.

My humble suggestion… and don’t forget, it’s never too late to correct an mistake ;)

You will risk your head for it?

Maybe to make my first contribution to open source, I’ll fork openSUSE. It’ll be exactly the same as mainline openSUSE, just using the old version numbering scheme. :-)