I wonder whether there?s a name for this: I know of one or two
open-source projects which started out with a series of version
numbers of the form ?1.x?, only to decide to drop the ?1.? at some
point (before getting to version ?2.x?) and just use the ?x? part as
the version number.
I first came across this with Java, where the version numbers got up
to 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, and then these were renumbered 8, 9, 10, and the
next one was version 11.
This also happened with the Asterisk PBX software, where the stable
releases have even version numbers: these got up to 1.6 and then 1.8,
then the next one after that was version 10, and we are now up to
version 22.
I believe this also happened earlier with Emacs, but the only official information I can find indicates that the first public release was
numbered 13, from 1985.
Can anyone shed any further light on this? Do you know of any other
examples?
Do you know of any other
examples?
On 1/16/26 12:55 AM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Do you know of any other
examples?
The Macintosh operating system, which was stuck at 10 for over a decade
until they went to yearly releases and dropped the X
In article <10ke97q$1m259$2@dont-email.me>,
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2026 16:05, Al Kossow wrote:
On 1/16/26 12:55 AM, Lawrence Dƒ??Oliveiro wrote:Well Honeywell's GCOS3 never got to a Release 5.x. I understand they >>promised certain features in R 5.x so it stuck at 4.x then 4.xy...
Do you know of any other
examples?
The Macintosh operating system, which was stuck at 10 for over a decade
until they went to yearly releases and dropped the X
.. then they renamed it to GCOS8
Dave
TeX is famously converging on pi...
On 1/16/26 12:55 AM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Do you know of any other examples?
The Macintosh operating system, which was stuck at 10 for over
a decade until they went to yearly releases and dropped the X
On 2026-01-16, Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> wrote:
On 1/16/26 12:55 AM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Do you know of any other examples?
The Macintosh operating system, which was stuck at 10 for over
a decade until they went to yearly releases and dropped the X
Windows 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP, 7...
On 2026-01-16, Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> wrote:
On 1/16/26 12:55 AM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Do you know of any other examples?
The Macintosh operating system, which was stuck at 10 for over
a decade until they went to yearly releases and dropped the X
Windows 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP, 7...
On 2026-01-17, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> wrote:
On 1/16/26 12:55 AM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Do you know of any other examples?
The Macintosh operating system, which was stuck at 10 for over
a decade until they went to yearly releases and dropped the X
Windows 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP, 7...
3.0, 3.1, 4.0, 4.10, NT5.0, NT5.1, NT6.1 :-)
(I think Windows 10 is the big outlier?)
According to Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid>:
On 2026-01-17, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> wrote:
On 1/16/26 12:55 AM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Do you know of any other examples?
The Macintosh operating system, which was stuck at 10 for over
a decade until they went to yearly releases and dropped the X
Windows 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP, 7...
3.0, 3.1, 4.0, 4.10, NT5.0, NT5.1, NT6.1 :-)
(I think Windows 10 is the big outlier?)
I've heard that Microsoft skipped from Windows 8 to Windows 10 because
there is a lot of badly written code that checks for '9' and assumes
it's running on Win 95 or 98. From what I've seen of Windows code,
I can believe it.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 201:06:36 |
| Calls: | 188 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 80,609 |