Isn't OS 11 pretty far away? they have 4 releases still after 10.5, so that's 6-8 years after Leopards release IF they stick to 1.5-2 year release schedule.
Ever heard of OS 7.8 or OS 8.9 or OS 9.3?
So 11 could come after 10.5. 11 will be the new concept of OS hopefully we won't have to go through another major hardware turmoil and entire software library re-code.
Personally I think we'll see Lion as the final cat and then we'll get something new.
Why do you think that the first specifier can only be one digit? 10.11 Surely can be confusing, but how about OS Xa, OS Xb or OS X.11.... only thing that makes it confusing is the unnecessary repetition of 10, the X in OS X means ten.
Um, because once you get passed .9, you get a new whole number. Adding another digit would be like a minor update or something. Besides that, it would just look stupid.
Um, because once you get passed .9, you get a new whole number. Adding another digit would be like a minor update or something. Besides that, it would just look stupid.
For example gnome is in version 2.14.?? and linux kernel version is something like 2.6.17.11, Thinking version numbering as decimals would be very limiting. It would also suggest that you should preferably go thru all the numbers in between, and also it would interfere with idea that it's done when it is done.
Um, because once you get passed .9, you get a new whole number. Adding another digit would be like a minor update or something. Besides that, it would just look stupid.
No, you don't. Version numbers aren't decimal. 10.10 is unequal to 10.1, bigger than 10.9 and smaller than 11.0.
I'm astounded that I'm the only one here who paid attention in math class. In a world where 10.1 is not equal to 10.10, there is no such thing as 11.x because you no longer have a rule when to change to the next whole number. So you would be constantly adding another digit. Which is just stupid. You have to have some kind of cut off point.
I'm astounded that I'm the only one here who paid attention in math class. In a world where 10.1 is not equal to 10.10, there is no such thing as 11.x because you no longer have a rule when to change to the next whole number. So you would be constantly adding another digit. Which is just stupid. You have to have some kind of cut off point.
What part of "Version numbers aren't decimal" did you fail to understand? A version number consists of multiple dot-separated integer numbers. You're right: there is no "rule when to change to the next whole number". There is no need for one either. The "next whole number" occurs when significant changes have been made to the application.
I'm astounded that I'm the only one here who paid attention in math class. In a world where 10.1 is not equal to 10.10, there is no such thing as 11.x because you no longer have a rule when to change to the next whole number. So you would be constantly adding another digit. Which is just stupid. You have to have some kind of cut off point.
A.B.C
A=Major software version
B=Primary revision number
C=Minor update number
Hence, 10.4.12 is the twelvth update to the fourth revision of the tenth version.
Remember that in PC land it's not uncommon to see even more numbers. Microsoft will go so far as to include the build number, which frequently reaches into the tens of thousands for major software packages.
No cutoff is necessary because it's not decimal. 10.5 is not Ten and a half, because there is no such thing as a half release (unless you're microsoft. j/k)
It's similar to the way that we count the date... 8.27.06
The period is only a separator, that's all. If all that's happening to a software package is bug fixes and stuff, then there is no reason to increment the revision number.
What part of "Version numbers aren't decimal" did you fail to understand? A version number consists of multiple dot-separated integer numbers. You're right: there is no "rule when to change to the next whole number". There is no need for one either. The "next whole number" occurs when significant changes have been made to the application.
Comments
Alright how the hell do you remember that? Do you like havve the whole collection on DVD and watch them every day or something?
To be perfectly honest, I googled it...
There's no Puma
LMAO. (God I'm old...)
I just started imagining MS's new codenames:
Vista 2.0 Vultureman and Monkeyboy (or whatever their names are)
Vista 3.0 Mum-ra (because we'll all be dead before it's released and have to be reincarnated to use it)
Vista 4.0 Those-dumb-wildebeast-dudes-that-Lion-O-saved-in-like-episode-3...
On a related note: man...I love Robot Chicken!
"Practice Safe HEX, and Avoid Computer Viruses Today!"
Xi sounds too much like Wii. :P
I don't need any Wii wii on my computer.
Come on MOD, put this thread in a more suitable appropriate forum.
hu's MOD?
hu's MOD?
wu? :P
Isn't OS 11 pretty far away? they have 4 releases still after 10.5, so that's 6-8 years after Leopards release IF they stick to 1.5-2 year release schedule.
Ever heard of OS 7.8 or OS 8.9 or OS 9.3?
So 11 could come after 10.5. 11 will be the new concept of OS hopefully we won't have to go through another major hardware turmoil and entire software library re-code.
Personally I think we'll see Lion as the final cat and then we'll get something new.
mrtotes
Why do you think that the first specifier can only be one digit? 10.11 Surely can be confusing, but how about OS Xa, OS Xb or OS X.11.... only thing that makes it confusing is the unnecessary repetition of 10, the X in OS X means ten.
Um, because once you get passed .9, you get a new whole number. Adding another digit would be like a minor update or something. Besides that, it would just look stupid.
Um, because once you get passed .9, you get a new whole number.
No, you don't. Version numbers aren't decimal. 10.10 is unequal to 10.1, bigger than 10.9 and smaller than 11.0.
Um, because once you get passed .9, you get a new whole number. Adding another digit would be like a minor update or something. Besides that, it would just look stupid.
For example gnome is in version 2.14.?? and linux kernel version is something like 2.6.17.11, Thinking version numbering as decimals would be very limiting. It would also suggest that you should preferably go thru all the numbers in between, and also it would interfere with idea that it's done when it is done.
Um, because once you get passed .9, you get a new whole number. Adding another digit would be like a minor update or something. Besides that, it would just look stupid.
This just ain't how it's done....
No, you don't. Version numbers aren't decimal. 10.10 is unequal to 10.1, bigger than 10.9 and smaller than 11.0.
I'm astounded that I'm the only one here who paid attention in math class. In a world where 10.1 is not equal to 10.10, there is no such thing as 11.x because you no longer have a rule when to change to the next whole number. So you would be constantly adding another digit. Which is just stupid. You have to have some kind of cut off point.
I'm astounded that I'm the only one here who paid attention in math class. In a world where 10.1 is not equal to 10.10, there is no such thing as 11.x because you no longer have a rule when to change to the next whole number. So you would be constantly adding another digit. Which is just stupid. You have to have some kind of cut off point.
What part of "Version numbers aren't decimal" did you fail to understand? A version number consists of multiple dot-separated integer numbers. You're right: there is no "rule when to change to the next whole number". There is no need for one either. The "next whole number" occurs when significant changes have been made to the application.
I'm astounded that I'm the only one here who paid attention in math class. In a world where 10.1 is not equal to 10.10, there is no such thing as 11.x because you no longer have a rule when to change to the next whole number. So you would be constantly adding another digit. Which is just stupid. You have to have some kind of cut off point.
A.B.C
A=Major software version
B=Primary revision number
C=Minor update number
Hence, 10.4.12 is the twelvth update to the fourth revision of the tenth version.
Remember that in PC land it's not uncommon to see even more numbers. Microsoft will go so far as to include the build number, which frequently reaches into the tens of thousands for major software packages.
No cutoff is necessary because it's not decimal. 10.5 is not Ten and a half, because there is no such thing as a half release (unless you're microsoft.
It's similar to the way that we count the date... 8.27.06
The period is only a separator, that's all. If all that's happening to a software package is bug fixes and stuff, then there is no reason to increment the revision number.
But I think I missed some sarcasm somewhere....
What part of "Version numbers aren't decimal" did you fail to understand? A version number consists of multiple dot-separated integer numbers. You're right: there is no "rule when to change to the next whole number". There is no need for one either. The "next whole number" occurs when significant changes have been made to the application.
right, what he said.
<imagines adding System 6 to System 7>
The proper forum would probably be Mac OS, not future hardware.
Eats. Babies.