Does anyone else find the codenames inscrutable and annoying? I realize they’re cute or whatever, but they fail at the one practical purpose they actually have, which is to be version numbers. What’s the previous version? Is version A newer or older than version B? At least Ubuntu also has sensible version numbers, although many people, including most insiders (in my experience) seem to prefer the codenames.
Debian does have version numbers (bullseye is 11 in this case) but you’re right that similar to Ubuntu most folks use the codenames.
I think the codenames are cute, and the theme has some history around it. The debian project leader at the time they were introduced was working at Pixar, and from what I recall the first “official” debian repo was just a workstation sitting under a desk somewhere at Pixar.
In my experience, people have difficulty remembering any codename except the current stable (as long as it’s been stable for a while, which means we’re about to be in trouble) and “sid”, which is always testing. [edit: and I’ve been using Debian regularly since 1.3]
I think I shall suggest that every place the codename is used, the major version corresponding to it should be accepted, so that you can replace “buster” with “10” everywhere.
Wasn’t “sid” unstable, with testing being the codename of the next release?
(And so I inadvertently prove my point.)
I want to say that I really like NixOS version: NixOS 21.05 “Okapi”. Having both year.month and codename is helpful and cute. Alas, I am using the unstable rolling release :-)
Bullseye is… Woody’s horse in Toy Story 2?
I hope they never name a Debian release after Stinky Pete.
You can see the list of future codenames here: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases
Bookworm & Trixie are next apparently.