[Marketing] Sugar 0.100 or 1.0

[Ron Feigenblatt]

On 5/17/13, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> we need to decide if we want the next release to be 1.0 or 0.100.

One asks, what should one call the software to be released?

I will not bore people by repeating why I think "Sugar" is a bad name.
By now, its use is fait accompli. But I think one should still
mitigate what is perhaps its biggest drawback, the generic character.
This can be done by always qualifying the names of products, e.g. via
"Sugar by Sugar Labs", or "sugarlabs.org Sugar" or some other
convention, as long as the one chosen is NEVER changed again.

Now on to the specific question about the version number.

About 27 years ago, a credible person teaching the use of PC-based
"office suites" to the employees of what was then the world's biggest
computer firm told me an amusing story about software version numbers.
Today, I find this story is attested to by text on page 389 of
"Encyclopedia of Microcomputers", Volume 4 (CRC Press, 1989) online
at: books.google.com/books?id=2uy5NlyIzmkC&pg=PA389 , which says:

"dBASE is the most well-received database management software package
for popular types of microcomputers as well as one of the most popular
software programs for microcomputers to date... dBASE, then known as
Vulcan, was developed by Wayne Ratliff in 1980. Ratliff had created
Vulcan at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California...
Almost immediately, a marketing decision was made to change Vulcan's
name to dBASE II. Using a lower case character in the name of a
microcomputer software package had never been done before... The 'II'
was added to imply an improved product, even though dBASE I never
existed."

With the subsequent rise of Microsoft in the 1990s, many people would
soon adopt the rule of thumb that one should never buy the first two
versions of any type of software from Microsoft.

And with the chronic online security issues which dominated the early
years of this century, popular wisdom became that all mass-market
software was "beta" (version 0.x) software, i.e. that all of it would
need much patching before it was finally abandoned as obsolete.

Today was are nonplussed by the frequent, irregular, Internet-mediated
notices to upgrade at no charge the version of Acrobat, Java or what
not one uses. Version numbers spin like the odometers of racing
automobiles. We just grin and bear it, and when practical, archive
backup images so that, even without the cooperation of our software
purveyors, we can always elect to rollback the "improvements" which
may break key stuff.

And you can go ask the Redmond people about their recent "new Coke"
experience with "version 8" of their flagship product. A new number
won't make a product succeed.

The bottom line is that by now, I think savvy people in
decision-making positions are pretty cynical about the guiding value
of version numbers per se. Instead, personally, I am disinclined to
update/upgrade any usable software, unless doing so is loudly
advocated by trusted, disinterested, third parties. Only then will I
look at the release note promises and inquire how fully third-party
opinion weighs in on its veracity. And even after that, I will still
pause to weigh the opportunity costs of any proposed change.

The only reason I will accept at once a recommended "free upgrade" for
adequately working software is if the machine in question is attached
to the Internet (not all are!), it also holds or handles sensitive
data, and the purveyor also screams "mea culpa" that the
security-issue boogeyman is hiding under my bed once again.

So, someone like me says software publishers can KEEP their "version"
numbers. Just give me the build date (so that I know if the same
version is running on different machines or not) and if they like, the
sequential integer build number (it is shorter, albeit less
informative). I never forgot the dBASE story from a quarter-century
ago! Maybe many others haven't, either.

At this point, the thing which will sell Sugar (or not) to savvy folks
is the experience of the national education systems which have adopted
it and keep using it.

- Ron