Java 1.5 Is Dead...
...long live Java 5.0.
Why can't people who market software count? Windows 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 2000, XP. Java 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 aka 2.0, 1.4 aka 2.0, 1.5 aka 5.0. It appears that the defining attribute of open source software is a predictable versioning scheme (even if it is a little odd at first, as in Havoc's experiment with the Fibonacci series as version numbers for Metacity).
NP: Simple Things, Zero 7
Posted by Joe Wreschnig at Mon Jun 28 20:16:53 2004:
Posted by Joe Buck at Mon Jun 28 21:26:25 2004:
GNU Emacs did something similar some years back.
Emacs versions used to all be 1.x.y, but the 1 never changed and was showing no signs of ever changing, so it was dropped. By the original numbering scheme, I'd be running Emacs 1.21.3, instead it is 21.3. So, in that sense, when Solaris renamed 2.7 to Solaris 7, they did exactly what RMS did long ago.
Posted by Glen at Tue Jun 29 12:41:28 2004:
Emacs versions used to all be 1.x.y, but the 1 never changed and was showing no signs of ever changing, so it was dropped. By the original numbering scheme, I'd be running Emacs 1.21.3, instead it is 21.3. So, in that sense, when Solaris renamed 2.7 to Solaris 7, they did exactly what RMS did long ago.
I remember hearing something about this a few years ago. I believe this is related to a superstitous belief in Japan around the number 4. Ah that's it. A quick google and "In Japan, sets of four are considered unlucky (the number 4 is pronounced the same as the word for death). " (http://www.crazycolour.com/os/print/japan_02.shtml)
If you look back at quite a few products, version 4 has mysteriously been skipped (MSDOS, PalmIII - PalmV).
Posted by Link at Fri Jul 2 09:31:31 2004:
Posted by ed at Wed Aug 25 22:58:42 2004:
If you look back at quite a few products, version 4 has mysteriously been skipped (MSDOS, PalmIII - PalmV).
I was amused by the Subversion version numbers. They seemed to be asymptotically slowing down. First M1, M2, M3, ... then they switched to 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 ... but 0.9 wasn't close to 1.0 yet, because then they went to 0.10, 0.11, 0.12, 0.13 ... then they seemed to slow down again by going to 0.13.1, 0.13.2 ...
Then a couple years later they went from 0.37 (a.k.a. 1.0.0-RC1) to 1.0.0-beta1. Whew.
Then a couple years later they went from 0.37 (a.k.a. 1.0.0-RC1) to 1.0.0-beta1. Whew.
