OS X version numbers
Jun 24
Am I the only person who thinks there is something wrong, versioning OS X Tiger 10.4.10?
I mean, if we approach this from a logic angle, 10.4.10 equals 10.4.1. So 10.4.2 should be a newer version than 10.4.10. Otherwise you should start with .01, .02 and so forth, to avoid running out of version numbers before you release the next larger version (10.5.0).
Another way to cope with this problem, running out of version numbers, would be to call it 10.4.91 - although that suggests a smaller update, than that of .10.
Maybe I’m just nitpicking, but it’s just my frustration from the fact, that Apple have been working on Leopard for over two years, and I am getting anxious.