<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/html" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"><channel><title>Ross Burton</title><link>http://www.burtonini.com/blog</link><description>A potted account of Ross' life</description><language>en</language><ttl>60</ttl><dc:creator>Ross Burton</dc:creator><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://pyblosxom.sourceforge.net/"/><admin:errorReportsTo rdf:resource="mailto:ross+web@burtonini.com"/><item><title>Java 1.5 Is Dead...</title><guid isPermaLink="false">computers/java-tiger-20040628</guid><link>http://www.burtonini.com/blog/computers/java-tiger-20040628</link><description>...long live Java 5.0. Why can't people who market software count? Windows 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 2000, ...</description><content:encoded><![CDATA[  <p>
    ...long live Java 5.0.
  </p>
  <p>
    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).
  </p>
  <p>
    <small>NP: Simple Things, Zero 7</small>
  </p>
]]></content:encoded><dc:date>2004-06-28T17:24:18Z</dc:date></item></channel></rss>