Existing users, log in.  New users, create a free account.  Lost password?

1 comments

Just a tought - Wm. Cerniuk

Since inviting the UNIX croud in, the version numbers have been rather random and in some cases nonsense. Version number elements *never* begin with 0. A version number while under development is the target number and when the version is ratified for release, it stays the same. Build numbers should never be shown to the pubic unless the software is beta. Releasing software as a build number shows that there is a lack of quality control and the release point is being determined by the clock or marketing people, not by quality or achieving a documented goal. Last, the definition of the number system (initially from Microsoft believe it or not) is: X.Y.Z. Z is a bug fix release, frequently with little or no feature additions. Z numbering starts over at 1 when Y is incremented. Y is the feature enhancement update version, usually with bug fixes as well but the majority of the update is to add new features. Y starts over at 1 when X is incremented. X is a complete overhaul and has so many fundamental changes that it requires a re-write of the manual. Expect to pay for X updates, sometimes but not always Y updates and *never* pay for Z updates. This is how it worked for 15 years before Mac OS X. MS, using the industry standard mechanism, is legitimately something like 1.5.2

Reply to This

Sunday, April 23 2006 @ 07:08 AM PDT