Comment 26 for bug 189406

I think that update-manager should show version numbers BY DEFAULT. The point of an update manager is to, well... update your software. As such, you need to know some things: Name of package, whether the update is critical or not, the size of the download, a changelog and list of issues fixed, THE VERSION YOU CURRENTLY HAVE, and THE VERSION TO WHICH YOU ARE UPDATING.

It is a sad day when version numbers are considered "too complex." Heck, cars are sold by make, model, and year (more complex than one version number, in my opinion.) We trumpet Ubuntu by VERSION (and codename.) High profile products have version numbers (iTunes 6, iTunes 7, blah blah blah, Windows 3.1, Windows 98 SE, Windows XP, Windows Vista [insert edition name here].) Windows is unfortunately the most popular desktop OS, and has been for some time, and they have downright UGLY version names. Of course, half the people out there don't know what the heck they're running or doing on their computers, but the mad naming of Windows hasn't been an impediment. Note that I'm not arguing that just because someone else does something, we should do it, also. I'm saying that version numbers are not too complex for people.

Actually, I would make the argument that NOT having version numbers is more confusing. Imagine an update comes out for, say, pidgin. Then another update comes out for pidgin some time later. Joe User will think, "Well, great, I updated pidgin a while ago... don't really know what happened, but... what's the difference here?" As updates for the same package keep coming out, people will want a simple way to "know" that they're actually getting something new. Updating "pidgin" to "pidgin" to "pidgin" is kind of... unenlightening, whereas it is obvious that updating "pidgin 2.0" to "pidgin 2.0.1" to "pidgin 2.0.2" is actually, well, an update.