> The second set of digits represents major releases. The third set represents p...

zapzupnz · on May 16, 2020

> It's called being facetious

Then stop being facetious. It wasn't clear you were being facetious, anyway.

> Completely irrelevant

No, it isn't, not to the point I was making. You also don't get to decide what's relevant to a point someone else is making.

The point is that Vista's version number is 6.0, 7's was 6.1, 8's was 6.2, and 8.1's was 6.3. All seemingly minor version number bumps, all major releases.

> Yeah, the reality for my machine is that the upgrade did not take

That's unfortunate — but nobody else's problem. If you have a capable machine, harping on about ...

> They sell hardware

... doesn't really stand. They may be selling hardware — but you don't have to buy any.

brigandish · on May 17, 2020

Personally, I try to read in a charitable way by assuming that the person writing isn't being robotic - we may (most of us here) be techies but we're still human. I enjoy the wit of others, especially served wry.

Now, to versioning. There is no one standard for versioning. Again, we're mainly techies here, we know this (I hope). I like semver[1] (though I'm having doubts[2]), some prefer calver[3], others use versions as branding[4] (which extends beyond computing). Hence, the choice of version scheme chosen by another organisation or project has no relevance to any other project, their being in the same category or field or competing or whatever simply have no more relevance to this subject than Ford Escort MkII moving to MkIII.

If you're into recursion you might also try applying you "who gets to choose the relevance" logic beyond your own comments, it'll be enlightening.

Finally, if you're going to suggest that all X are capable of something but ignore exceptions to that to me smacks of dogmatism, and more importantly, of no help whatsoever to the person you're responding to.

If you have something helpful or insightful for me then please respond with that, else you can comment further up the thread with your thoughts about versioning and how a hardware company that has been fined for planned obsolescence via software updates[5] isn't angling for more purchases when it stops its dev environment being backwards compatible so it can support a half finished UI library.

[1] https://semver.org/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk A fascinating talk by Rich Hickey where he questions semver and the way we handle change as developers.

[3] https://calver.org/

[4] https://hbr.org/2011/05/the-best-way-to-name-your-product-20 It's interesting, they did lab tests:

> In laboratory and field studies involving hundreds of subjects, we found that when consumers see a brand-name continuation, they expect improvements to existing features. When they see a brand-name change, they expect fundamentally new features, and they perceive the product as riskier (likelier to fail or more prone to compatibility problems with previous products) but potentially more rewarding (higher in quality, more satisfying to use).

If OS X to macOS isn't a brand name change then what's the point (pun intended) of the 10?

[5] https://www.itworld.com/article/3316958/apple-and-samsung-fi... I got a free battery out of this one, perhaps I shouldn't complain? (wry humour alert;)

Edit: I managed to muck up the numbering. Is Markdown capable of off-by-one errors? I can make it happen.