I don't understand this rapid release model. I used to wait but from what I understand once the new number is out, the old number is no longer supported.
the rapid release thing is to keep up with chrome.
The funny thing is everybody's working harder, but nobody's making any more money.
Version numbers have become a joke pretty much across the board anyway. No one knew why Sun chose to go from Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 7, instead of just calling it 2.7, for example. Then there's the whole Microsoft "the year is the version number" thing.
It used to be the whole x.yz or x.y.z thing, where incrementing X meant a major new release, incrementing Y was a minor new release, and Z was maintenance.
But ever since marketing people started getting involved in version numbers, it's been an area completely dominated by douchebaggery (like everything touched by marketing).
Since we are early in the century, perhaps the model Ubuntu uses, where the version number is x.y, and where x = (year % 100) and y = (month), makes the most sense. Projects which expect to release maintenance versions more than once per month could do x.y.z for that.
Microsoft "the year is the version number" thing.
I bet that will change soon enough when some ms marketing guru realized they have to release lots of new version numbers becuse google is.
Since we are early in the century, perhaps the model Ubuntu uses,
where the version number is x.y, and where x = (year % 100) and y =
(month), makes the most sense. Projects which expect to release
I dunno, that sounds just as dumb as any of the other schemes. If they're not going to release a version of software with the next integer number, they they should tag it with the build number. That way you know exactly what you're getting, and you should be able to go into the source repository and build an exact duplicate of your binary based onthe build number.
Actually you said "tag" which seems to make more sense; any time a build is distributed to the outside world you just bump the build number and create a tag.
Back when we were running Subversion the commit numbers were sequential integers, and at one point I proposed using those as the version numbers. No one else on the team liked the idea.
Back when we were running Subversion the commit numbers were
sequential integers, and at one point I proposed using those as the
version numbers. No one else on the team liked the idea.
That's a good idea, and as yet another show of how fucking stupid subversion is, they HAVE that state-of-the-universe revision number which would ideally be used to associate with a named tag, which would work perfectly, but do they do that? No......... a tag, is a copy of a section of the tree. What The Fuck Is Wrong With Those People.
Fri Aug 19 2011 17:02:35 EDT from Ford II @ UncensoredMicrosoft "the year is the version number" thing.
If I remember correctly Windows 95 was suppose to be Windows 94 but they couldn't get all the bugs out so they delayed the release a year.
We will simply release Citadel 3000 and blow them all out of the market!!!1111
work perfectly, but do they do that? No......... a tag, is a copy of a
section of the tree. What The Fuck Is Wrong With Those People.
You already answered that question a long time ago. Their goal was to rewrite CVS. And they did, along with all of CVS's suckage.
Version number inflation has been proven to produce superior bug-free code.
Ask any Microsoft developer and they'll tell you all about it :)
Subject: Windows 8 developer preview: first impressions
I took a look at the Windows 8 "developer preview" yesterday. Not surprisingly, I found it quite cumbersome and annoying. Once again, Microsoft has built something that is more suited to their marketplace goals than to the needs of the end user. Having failed for years to sell anyone a phone that looks like the Windows desktop, Microsoft will now make the Windows desktop look like their phone. It's backwards but that's Microsoft for you.
By now you have probably heard Microsoft say that everything is now going to be a "Metro style" app (in other words, a Windows Phone app) and that the "classic" desktop is still there if you need it. Upon trying out Windows 8, one quickly realizes that this is somewhat disingenuous. The desktop is still there, and it still works exactly the way it did before. What they've actually done is replaced the Start menu with a Windows Phone ("Metro") environment. When you first boot up, you will see Windows Phone.
If you select a "regular" Windows application, it switches you over to the desktop, which behaves exactly the way it did in Windows 7. But once inside the desktop, if you click the Start menu, instead of seeing the Start menu appear, it switches the whole screen back to the Windows Phone interface.
Most of the "tiles" in the developer preview are mockups. They don't do anything on-screen, and they don't do anything when you click them. However, it makes Microsoft's intentions clear: they are going to force Windows Phone down the throats of Windows PC users everywhere, similar to the way they enslaved Windows 98 users to Internet Explorer with the "Active Desktop" design that everyone hated (especially Netscape users). And of course, the fact that most of these "tiles" lead to Bing destinations, demonstrates that Microsoft's first priority with Windows 8 is to "kill Google" and "kill Android." The entire user interface is designed around the concept of putting as many clicks as possible between the user and a Google destination, while providing as many Bing-based detours as possible along the way.
You may have also heard Microsoft talk about how Windows 8 will run on both Intel-86 and ARM processors. This is true, but only if you write "Metro style" apps. In other words, if you write only to the new API's (yes, Microsoft has once again provided you with The API To End All API's, And This Time We Really Mean It) then your program will run on Windows 8 Intel and Windows 8 ARM (and perhaps on Windows Phone, who knows), but not on Windows 7 or Windows Vista or Windows XP, etc. Microsoft will be fighting against the very legacy that has kept its desktop monopoly in place all these years. Are developers going to write Metro apps, or are they going to write software that runs on all versions of Windows? Are consumers going to buy ARM devices that won't run their existing Intel-86 Windows software?
Conclusion: Windows 8 as it currently stands is half-baked, misdirected, and annoying. Of course, this could also be said for most of Microsoft's existing products.
They will not be using Flash for their "Metro" version of Windows 8. (LINK)