Just finished the dist-upgrade from Sarge to Etch. I hit a few snags along the way so it kind of took a while but it all seems to be working. I just need to configure a few things. No big deal. It's a bit late now so I'm hitting the hay. Many thanks to rickh et al for the advice.

Thank you, rickh:-) Just finished a clean install of Etch. Used aptitude to grab all of my media codecs, java, and KDE. Everything works very well. Debian is stable as hell.
Congratulations to the developers!

Might seem like a dumb question, but I'm having difficulty finding a definite answer. How does the Debian version numbering work?

Very slowly.

I don't know how they decide to move it, but here are some numbers I remembered or google helped me find out via Wikipedia:

I don't see a whole ton of sense in the numbers, but it probably has a very clear logic behind it. I thought maybe it was default kernel version, but that doesn't seem to pan out. I thought maybe a new version number signified a change in the second digit of the kernel (ie moving the default from 2.4 to 2.6 prompted the move from 3.1 to 4.0), but that isn't true. Debian 3.0 for example shipped with 2.2 by default, and 2.4 as optional. 3.1 took 3 years to come out after that, then came with 2.4 and 2.6 optional, then only 2 years later 4.0 comes out, with 2.6 only.

The wikipedia page has links (show in my chart above) to the historical release notes on the Debian servers, telling what default versions of things were included. Maybe the version number is tied to the gcc compiler? Version 4 of that shipped with Etch, or was it 4.1? That might be a better chance than kernel version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian

Peace,
JimBass

AFAIK, the Debian numbering is not tied to anything else. The Debian leadership determines how significant the change between two releases is and upgrades the versioning based on that. In other words, if a lot changed (i.e., new glibc, new kernel, new gcc, etc.) then it probably bumps a full version, otherwise just a minor.

I'm betting that there will be no 4.1. From now on each release will bump up to the next number. Just look at the pattern...

...well actually, I think it's essentially pressure from Ubuntu. Before Ubuntu, it didn't really matter what numbering scheme Debian used. Debian was the best, and anyone who wanted Debian's wonderful features really had no serious alternative.

Ubuntu changed all that, and so it became terribly important for Debian to not have the appearance of being left behind in the dust. Going from "Debian 3.0" to "Debian 3.1" sounds uninspiring, even if the Sarge installer and hardware detection was a major upgrade from Woody (these were features which made Ubuntu a practical possibility in the first place!).

OTOH, going from "Debian 3.1" to "Debian 4.0" SOUNDS impressive.

My upgrade is finally complete with no noticeable problems, but will test out system when I have more time. So far so good... Loving every minute of it...

Really? I know some Debian devs can seem petty at times... but this seems a bit too childish.

Anyway I just thought I'd chime in and mention that the Debian servers seem to have calmed down finally so if you have been putting off updating your dvds then now is the time to do it.

Debian Simply rocks!.
But...the time taken for new packages and new upgrades are a lil slow at debian as i am a Debian Sid+experimental user.although Debian's dfsg thing and more explains they are more into stability;not faster and newer packages and s/w.but it bites when major DE's like GNOME is lagging @ version:2.16(2.18 released) in Etch. v2.18 is not yet fully there in Unstable(sid).for kde users there is some backports repo..Though a Debian User-I like Newest packages atleast MY DE GNOME;only GNOME

I just finished my weekly upgrade from Sid, and I think Gnome 2.18 is all there now.

I thought packages were supposed to come in faster now that we have a new testing? I used to update 10 - 20 packages a day. Now I'm lucky if there are any at all each day.

If you're running Sid there are dozens every day. They're working their way into Testing ... cautiously.

I'm now running Etch on seven boxes. My latest install was on a P4 IBM Netvista in my classroom with 684 MB RAM (it had Ubuntu 7.04 on it). The Netvista is smoking now with Etch!
I love the stability that Etch gives me. The only real patch I've had in Etch so far is a kernel upgrade. Stable, secure. I'm happy with Etch.

How unstable is Sid? I'd almost be tempted to upgrade to that just to see what the bleeding edge is like, but I don't want my system to stop functioning or anything...