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.
Jun 24 at 15:13
I agree totally on the part, that .9.1 would assume it was a minor edit, which it isn’t.
But yes, you are right! I do interpret the versions numbers as a decimal value, hence .10 equals .1.
From a mathematical POV .1 and .10 (And .1000 for that matter) would be exactly the same. Which it isn’t - logically, when the matter is software versions. I know that. I just dislike the ‘.10′. I’d rather have a 10.5 ;-)
Jun 24 at 15:15
Now we’re at the root of the matter. You would rather have seen 10.5 rather than another 10.4 update :)
Jun 24 at 15:19
Bingo! ;-)