ROS 6.27 is the at the limit? So when to expect ROS 7 beta?

InoX · February 20, 2015, 6:30pm

Is ROS 6.xx aproaching the end?
v5.26 latest
v4.17 latest
Only ROS 3.30 was higher.
So when to expect ROS 7 beta?

vortex · February 20, 2015, 7:19pm

I think it is just the beginning. I am still waiting for a reasonably solid version to move to v6.

jarda · February 20, 2015, 7:52pm

If fastly, I expect we can see something halfly usable in the autumn. But we all know how long it takes to have at least somehow usable and reliable ros. Around two years. So, I am curious if it is going to change or if each new minor of v7 will introduce new errors like we use to see with v6. For my purposes the 6.25 is still the best. 6.27 makes me problems with SSTP. Maybe 6.30 will be usable for me again… Who knows.

honzam · February 20, 2015, 8:51pm

And what about 2.9.51? We have a lot of time in V6
Yes, 7.0 beta is expected. I hope…

InoX · February 20, 2015, 9:22pm

Isn’n x.9 smaler than x.27? Or was another numbering method…

rmmccann · February 20, 2015, 10:10pm

Their numbering is goofy. x.NINE is older than x.TWENTYSEVEN.

BartoszP · February 21, 2015, 12:25am

Goofy or not goofy numbering …that is the question.
It was already discussed. I think that it is easy to accept fact that software revision numbers are monotonically increasing.
I do not think that descriptions 7.001 … 7.099, 7.100 … 7.567 … will look better than 7.1, 7.2…7.99…7.567.
Should Mikrotik start 7 branch revison number from 01 or 001 to have enough numbers to increase ?

NathanA · February 21, 2015, 2:26am

Not sure why this is so hard to understand, and there’s nothing goofy about it, past or present.

Before 3.x, everything was numbered as 2.x.x. Every new “major” version of the software increased the second number instead of the first, so when they went from 2.8.x to 2.9.x (for example) in the past, that was equivalent to going from 3.x to 4.x in today’s scheme. So, InoX and rmmccann, however you slice it, the 51 in 2.9.51 is clearly a LARGER number than the 27 in 6.27. Again, not sure why this is so hard to understand. “2.8” changed to “2.9” changed to “3” changed to “4”, etc. The LAST number is the revision number, so there were obviously more revisions of RouterOS 2.9 released (51) than any other major version of RouterOS to-date.

I don’t know the history of RouterOS going all the way back to 1.0, but my guess would be that they went from 1.x to 2.0 fairly quickly, but then stuck with 2.x numbering for a long time because perhaps they didn’t feel like they were introducing large enough changes to justify an increase of the first number. Their thinking obviously changed when RouterOS 3 was released. Prior to that, the change from 2.7 to 2.8 to 2.9 always signified that MikroTik had upgraded the version of the Linux kernel that RouterOS was based on. Now instead of just bumping up the minor version number for kernel upgrades, they bump up the major version number. So the minor version number became the major version number, and the revision number became the minor version number.

– Nathan

InoX · February 21, 2015, 10:40pm

Thanks.
Who cares?

payday · February 22, 2015, 9:58pm

http://forum.mikrotik.com/t/routeros-v7-0-beta1-when/84572/1

After reading Normis’s post I guess it will be available in half year.

rmmccann · February 23, 2015, 2:28pm

NathanA:

Not sure why this is so hard to understand, and there’s nothing goofy about it, past or present.

Before 3.x, everything was numbered as 2.x.x. Every new “major” version of the software increased the second number instead of the first, so when they went from 2.8.x to 2.9.x (for example) in the past, that was equivalent to going from 3.x to 4.x in today’s scheme. So, InoX and rmmccann, however you slice it, the 51 in 2.9.51 is clearly a LARGER number than the 27 in 6.27. Again, not sure why this is so hard to understand. “2.8” changed to “2.9” changed to “3” changed to “4”, etc. The LAST number is the revision number, so there were obviously more revisions of RouterOS 2.9 released (51) than any other major version of RouterOS to-date.

I don’t know the history of RouterOS going all the way back to 1.0, but my guess would be that they went from 1.x to 2.0 fairly quickly, but then stuck with 2.x numbering for a long time because perhaps they didn’t feel like they were introducing large enough changes to justify an increase of the first number. Their thinking obviously changed when RouterOS 3 was released. Prior to that, the change from 2.7 to 2.8 to 2.9 always signified that MikroTik had upgraded the version of the Linux kernel that RouterOS was based on. Now instead of just bumping up the minor version number for kernel upgrades, they bump up the major version number. So the minor version number became the major version number, and the revision number became the minor version number.

– Nathan

I wasn’t misunderstanding anything - the question was x.9 vs x.27 (exactly what I quoted). The question was never posed about 2.9.51 (at least not that I was responding to).