Looking for that Interview with Chris Hofmann that Slashdot Mentioned?
Friday November 12th, 1999
Slashdot had a piece online this morning about Mozilla, with a link to an interview with Chris Hofmann of the Mozilla team. However,the server was soon Slashdotted, and no one could get on to the site. We have permission to mirror the Evolt page with Chris's comments, so if you are interested in reading an update on the state of Mozilla, click here. Thanks to Daniel Cody of Evolt.org for allowing us to post the article.
a name should be picked that most users will be able to identify the product by easily.
I'm willing to bet most users don't know the version number of whatever software they're using if its just some regular number like x.x. E.g. turn your minds back to 1995, when Office 4.x was the major MS office suite. Did people say they used MS Office 4.2, or just MS Office? Did everyone know they were using Excel 5.0 or Word 6.0? Do people today know they're using Word 9.0 etc? Not really.
I find that most people more easily recognise year versioning. If I say "do you use Netscape 4.6?" I get "I don't really know..." but if I say "Word 97?" "yes, I've got Word 97!"
Year numbering is something that relates to a tangible thing, a year. (well, more tangible than a version number anyway). Aside from this, there is the obvious benefit in that years from now, historic software collectors will be able to easily know the year in which a piece of software was released :)
Thus, I vote for "2000"