As far as I can tell you are the idiot that has his panties in a bunch over a software version number. Did you number it 10.10? Do you not understand how decimals work? You see, the number behind it is a smaller number the bigger number is towards the left. 10.9 is now 11 should be next. That is how decimals work. Now you can stop being a douche because I commented on how journalists are referring as 10.10. It was not a comment on how it was wrong it CAN be read as Puma 10.1. That is all I was saying. Now get a life.
Please explain the version number of the XNU Kernel (2422.100.13) used in OS X 10.9.3?
djd214- answer that question and you win. If you can't, admit you're wrong and then SHUT UP!
OMG. You are all idiots. I was commenting on what Journalists are calling it not ON the actual numbering system! I actually work for Apple. Where am I saying I am right about anything? This was a comment on the journalism not the software distribution system!
Anyone want to speculate about the blending of the short wave spectrum (violet-blue 400nm-500nm) with the long wave spectrum (red-orange 700nm - 600nm) in the graphic?
As far as I can tell you are the idiot that has his panties in a bunch over a software version number. Did you number it 10.10? Do you not understand how decimals work? You see, the number behind it is a smaller number the bigger number is towards the left. 10.9 is now 11 should be next. That is how decimals work. Now you can stop being a douche because I commented on how journalists are referring as 10.10. It was not a comment on how it was wrong it CAN be read as Puma 10.1. That is all I was saying. Now get a life.
So you still claim that 100.100.100.100* is equal to 100.1.1.1 because "that's how decimal points work" even when the period isn't a decimal but simply a separator.
* That's not an IP address, that's the version number for this conversation.
So you still claim that 100.100.100.100* is equal to 100.1.1.1 because "that's how decimal points work" even when the period isn't a decimal but simply a separator.
* That's not an IP address, that's the version number for this conversation.
Actually that was you assuming what I said because I accidentally replied to you on my phone. Stop putting words in my mouth. I posted because I was tickled that reporters referring to 10.10 could mean Puma. Now please shut up
I don't think he's trolling. I think he really doesn't understand that that the value after the separator isn't a fractional value of 10. Your comment proves it. Now if .11 came after .1 and before .2 then he would have a point, but it came after .10. Maybe these idiots need to try to see that there is an infinite number of .0's at the end of all software versions if they can't see these values as the integers they are.
As far as I can tell you are the idiot that has his panties in a bunch over a software version number. Did you number it 10.10? Do you not understand how decimals work? You see, the number behind it is a smaller number the bigger number is towards the left. 10.9 is now 11 should be next. That is how decimals work. Now you can stop being a douche because I commented on how journalists are referring as 10.10. It was not a comment on how it was wrong it CAN be read as Puma 10.1. That is all I was saying. Now get a life.
I call bullshit!
You specifically said, "if Apple calls it 10.10, then they need to go back to school", which is what lead to this whole discussion about software version numbers.
You specifically said, "if Apple calls it 10.10, then they need to go back to school", which is what lead to this whole discussion about software version numbers.
Meaning Apple is not the one that is calling it 10.10.
Meaning Apple is not the one that is calling it 10.10.
They haven't called it anything yet! But you're saying if they do call it 10.10, they need to relearn the decimal system. Even though this has nothing to do with the decimal system.
Again, please explain XNU version 2422.100.13 to us?
Actually that was you assuming what I said because I accidentally replied to you on my phone. Stop putting words in my mouth. I posted because I was tickled that reporters referring to 10.10 could mean Puma. Now please shut up
No, that is what you said. You even used an example of 10.10000000.01 for a software version which you called Puma. In fact, the only numerical reduction that can be made from your silly example is making it 10.10000000.1 as leading zeros can be removed from WHOLE numbers.
I've taken the liberty of placing your comments below for the world to see in case you ever learn to use the Edit button...
Well If Apple is calling it 10.10 they need to go back to school. If these tech journalists are the ones calling it 10.10, 10.1, 10.100000, it doesn't matter how many zeros are behind it, is still 10.1 Puma
I think you are the one who is confused. I don't need an explanation. I simply was saying that numerically 10.10 is no different from 10.1. Journalists keep referring it as 10.10 (not Apple). Why is THAT so hard to understand?
Try telling the computer it doesn't have to follow the decimal system. This is not a system Apple made up that does not have to follow an actual number system. 10.1.1 already exists it patched Puma.
Meaning Apple is not the one that is calling it 10.10.
That wasn't your meaning. You clearly stated your meaning that the period used as a separator between discreet whole numbers is in fact a mathematical symbol known as a decimal point even though there can be TWO (or more) or them, as well as letters and other symbols, within the designation of the software version.
OMG. You are all idiots. I was commenting on what Journalists are calling it not ON the actual numbering system! I actually work for Apple. Where am I saying I am right about anything? This was a comment on the journalism not the software distribution system!
Wow, you are clearly delusional. Your original statement was that if Apple calls it 10.10 they need to go back to school. Working for Apple is irrelevant to the conversation and doesn't lend you any additional credibility. It's not that difficult to just admit your misunderstanding of software versioning and move on rather than trying to attack ad hominem everyone else.
As mentioned by others, OS X 10.9.3 (13D65) is using the schema [ major version . minor version . revision number (BUILD NUMBER)]
So the 10 signifies the 10th major version of Mac OS, the 9 signifies the 9th minor version of Mac OS 10, the 3 signifies the 3rd revision of the 9th minor version of the 10th major version of Mac OS, and the (13D65) is the build number as explained by mjtomlin.
They haven't called it anything yet! But you're saying if they do call it 10.10, they need to relearn the decimal system. Even though this has nothing to do with the decimal system.
Again, please explain XNU version 2422.100.13 to us?
Actually web analytics firms have detected an OS version reporting as OS X 10.10 which would indicate that Apple has numbered it already. I can't find the other report I looked at previously that confirmed at least some of these versions were coming from IP's at Apples corporate campus but here is the Macworld article.
OMG. You are all idiots. I was commenting on what Journalists are calling it not ON the actual numbering system! I actually work for Apple. Where am I saying I am right about anything? This was a comment on the journalism not the software distribution system!
I go out to dinner and come back to find this thread totally off the rails, SNAFU.
Didn't anyone read the wikipedia page on software versioning?
I go out to dinner and come back to find this thread totally off the rails, SNAFU.
Didn't anyone read the wikipedia page on software versioning?
I did read it and it was fairly interesting information on software versioning in general. I like the bit about versioning in geek culture also. While the portion on how Apples numbering methods have changed since the release of OS X, I'd disagree with some of the information about Apples OS X versioning.
"Apple has a formalised version number structure based around the NumVersion struct, which specifies a one- or two-digit major version, a one-digit minor version, a one-digit "bug" (i.e. revision) version, a stage indicator (drawn from the set development/prealpha, alpha, beta and final/release), and a one-byte (i.e. having values in the range 0–255) pre-release version, which is only used at stages prior to final."
This would indicate that 10.9.9f.255 would be the last version possible of OS X before moving to OS 11. They could simply be elaborating on the NumVersion structure in general and they do mention later under another Apple heading that basically Apple has shifted this scheme to keeping OS X (10) constant. So the 10 is ignored and the 9 in 10.9.3 is the major version, the 3 would be the minor version. Regardless, your other point about the "rails" was also noted...
How about that banner! Moscone West is starting to look like June 2nd is just around the corner.
You forgot the sarcasm tag otherwise you've just completely voided the entire Roman Numeral system... which incidentally is a good thing because it was so crap in the first place.
As far as I can tell you are the idiot that has his panties in a bunch over a software version number. Did you number it 10.10? Do you not understand how decimals work? You see, the number behind it is a smaller number the bigger number is towards the left. 10.9 is now 11 should be next. That is how decimals work. Now you can stop being a douche because I commented on how journalists are referring as 10.10. It was not a comment on how it was wrong it CAN be read as Puma 10.1. That is all I was saying. Now get a life.
Comments
This right here answers it all.
djd214- answer that question and you win. If you can't, admit you're wrong and then SHUT UP!
As far as I can tell you are the idiot that has his panties in a bunch over a software version number. Did you number it 10.10? Do you not understand how decimals work? You see, the number behind it is a smaller number the bigger number is towards the left. 10.9 is now 11 should be next. That is how decimals work. Now you can stop being a douche because I commented on how journalists are referring as 10.10. It was not a comment on how it was wrong it CAN be read as Puma 10.1. That is all I was saying. Now get a life.
Please explain the version number of the XNU Kernel (2422.100.13) used in OS X 10.9.3?
Yes.
So you still claim that 100.100.100.100* is equal to 100.1.1.1 because "that's how decimal points work" even when the period isn't a decimal but simply a separator.
* That's not an IP address, that's the version number for this conversation.
Suuuuure you do¡
Suuuuure it was¡
I don't think he's trolling. I think he really doesn't understand that that the value after the separator isn't a fractional value of 10. Your comment proves it. Now if .11 came after .1 and before .2 then he would have a point, but it came after .10. Maybe these idiots need to try to see that there is an infinite number of .0's at the end of all software versions if they can't see these values as the integers they are.
As far as I can tell you are the idiot that has his panties in a bunch over a software version number. Did you number it 10.10? Do you not understand how decimals work? You see, the number behind it is a smaller number the bigger number is towards the left. 10.9 is now 11 should be next. That is how decimals work. Now you can stop being a douche because I commented on how journalists are referring as 10.10. It was not a comment on how it was wrong it CAN be read as Puma 10.1. That is all I was saying. Now get a life.
I call bullshit!
You specifically said, "if Apple calls it 10.10, then they need to go back to school", which is what lead to this whole discussion about software version numbers.
Meaning Apple is not the one that is calling it 10.10.
They haven't called it anything yet! But you're saying if they do call it 10.10, they need to relearn the decimal system. Even though this has nothing to do with the decimal system.
Again, please explain XNU version 2422.100.13 to us?
No, that is what you said. You even used an example of 10.10000000.01 for a software version which you called Puma. In fact, the only numerical reduction that can be made from your silly example is making it 10.10000000.1 as leading zeros can be removed from WHOLE numbers.
I've taken the liberty of placing your comments below for the world to see in case you ever learn to use the Edit button...
That wasn't your meaning. You clearly stated your meaning that the period used as a separator between discreet whole numbers is in fact a mathematical symbol known as a decimal point even though there can be TWO (or more) or them, as well as letters and other symbols, within the designation of the software version.
You can't give him a number in the thousands when he can't even understand two separate numbers that only have a value of 10.
OMG. You are all idiots. I was commenting on what Journalists are calling it not ON the actual numbering system! I actually work for Apple. Where am I saying I am right about anything? This was a comment on the journalism not the software distribution system!
Wow, you are clearly delusional. Your original statement was that if Apple calls it 10.10 they need to go back to school. Working for Apple is irrelevant to the conversation and doesn't lend you any additional credibility. It's not that difficult to just admit your misunderstanding of software versioning and move on rather than trying to attack ad hominem everyone else.
As mentioned by others, OS X 10.9.3 (13D65) is using the schema [ major version . minor version . revision number (BUILD NUMBER)]
So the 10 signifies the 10th major version of Mac OS, the 9 signifies the 9th minor version of Mac OS 10, the 3 signifies the 3rd revision of the 9th minor version of the 10th major version of Mac OS, and the (13D65) is the build number as explained by mjtomlin.
-PopinFRESH
They haven't called it anything yet! But you're saying if they do call it 10.10, they need to relearn the decimal system. Even though this has nothing to do with the decimal system.
Again, please explain XNU version 2422.100.13 to us?
Actually web analytics firms have detected an OS version reporting as OS X 10.10 which would indicate that Apple has numbered it already. I can't find the other report I looked at previously that confirmed at least some of these versions were coming from IP's at Apples corporate campus but here is the Macworld article.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/mac/apple-already-testing-os-x-1010-analytics-suggest-3477032/
-PopinFRESH
OMG. You are all idiots. I was commenting on what Journalists are calling it not ON the actual numbering system! I actually work for Apple. Where am I saying I am right about anything? This was a comment on the journalism not the software distribution system!
I go out to dinner and come back to find this thread totally off the rails, SNAFU.
Didn't anyone read the wikipedia page on software versioning?
I go out to dinner and come back to find this thread totally off the rails, SNAFU.
Didn't anyone read the wikipedia page on software versioning?
I did read it and it was fairly interesting information on software versioning in general. I like the bit about versioning in geek culture also. While the portion on how Apples numbering methods have changed since the release of OS X, I'd disagree with some of the information about Apples OS X versioning.
"Apple has a formalised version number structure based around the NumVersion struct, which specifies a one- or two-digit major version, a one-digit minor version, a one-digit "bug" (i.e. revision) version, a stage indicator (drawn from the set development/prealpha, alpha, beta and final/release), and a one-byte (i.e. having values in the range 0–255) pre-release version, which is only used at stages prior to final."
This would indicate that 10.9.9f.255 would be the last version possible of OS X before moving to OS 11. They could simply be elaborating on the NumVersion structure in general and they do mention later under another Apple heading that basically Apple has shifted this scheme to keeping OS X (10) constant. So the 10 is ignored and the 9 in 10.9.3 is the major version, the 3 would be the minor version. Regardless, your other point about the "rails" was also noted...
How about that banner! Moscone West is starting to look like June 2nd is just around the corner.
-PopinFRESH
You can't use letters to represent a number¡
You forgot the sarcasm tag otherwise you've just completely voided the entire Roman Numeral system... which incidentally is a good thing because it was so crap in the first place.
As far as I can tell you are the idiot that has his panties in a bunch over a software version number. Did you number it 10.10? Do you not understand how decimals work? You see, the number behind it is a smaller number the bigger number is towards the left. 10.9 is now 11 should be next. That is how decimals work. Now you can stop being a douche because I commented on how journalists are referring as 10.10. It was not a comment on how it was wrong it CAN be read as Puma 10.1. That is all I was saying. Now get a life.
Google "context"