6 ms·
"The versions of Unix are numbered in a logical sequence: 5, 6, 6PWB, 7, 4.1, III, 4.3, V, and V.3." -- quoted from memory from The Unix-Haters Handbook So yo
by ScottBurson 9y ago
"The versions of Unix are numbered in a logical sequence: 5, 6, 6PWB, 7, 4.1, III, 4.3, V, and V.3." -- quoted from memory from The Unix-Haters Handbook
So you see, they're following long-standing industry practice :-)
- bartread 9y agoThe .NET and .NET Core version numbers are another minefield, and I still can't remember (and don't really care) what's what. Your choices are either to laugh or be filled with rage. I'm coming round to the first one having mostly opted for the second in recent months.
- int_19h 9y agoWhat's particularly weird about .NET version numbers? They're monotonically increasing, with the exception of .NET Core getting a reset to 1.0 (which kinda makes sense, since it's a different and incompatible product).
- tmzt 9y agoFramework 1.4 > 4.7 > 4.6.1?
- reitanqild 9y agoJust copying another idea from Java I'd guess: Java 1.4 -> Java 5. (Yes, I'm a Java programmer)
- int_19h 9y ago1.4 is not really "greater than" 4.7, they're just two different parallel tracks.
- ltowel 9y ago.Net Framework, .Net Core and .Net Standard all have different version numbers, which correspond to different things. In addition, since Core and Standard are both in the 1.Xs currently, it can be confusing. Finally, the .Net Core SDK is versioned differently from the run time, both somewhere in the low 1.Xs right now. ``` >dotnet Microsoft .NET Core Shared Framework Host Version : 1.1.0 Build : 928f77c4bc3f49d892459992fb6e1d5542cb5e86 ``` ``` >dotnet --version 1.0.0-preview2-1-003177 ``` The version numbers aren't necessarily weird, but the versioning sure is. Disclaimer: MS Employee who uses Dotnet, but doesn't work on it.
- skeletonjelly 9y agoMight be worth posting this https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/net-standard https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/net-standar... I should probably print it out I was in version hell yesterday, targeting a standard (1.5) because I thought it would help me run as .NET Core 1 whilst supporting a 4.6.2 .NET Framework dll but that broke something else. It was a juggling game of trade offs
- int_19h 9y agoAh, I keep forgetting about the Standard. This makes sense (as in, it does make less sense now that it makes sense).
- komali2 9y agoAngular 1, angular 2, angular 2.1... Angular (note, Angular 2 is now Angular! And so is every version after this! Angular 1 still exists though). Surface Pro. Surface Pro 2 (note: Surface Pro is now surface pro 1!), Surface Pro 3, Surface Pro 4, Surface Pro. By the way we also have Surfaces (1, 2, and 3?) as well as Surface Books, and Surface Laptops! :D Android: here's a bunch of fucking candy OS: here's a bunch of fucking animals. By the way, sometimes people call your macbooks 10,1 or some shit.
- lvillani 9y agoNitpick: "MacBookPro11,1" "Macmini7,1", etc refers to the hardware model: the first number being the machine's generation and the second one being its revision.
- smilekzs 9y ago> Android: here's a bunch of fucking candy whose initials follow alphabetical order
- ClassyJacket 9y agoiPad, iPad 2, The New iPad, iPad, iPad Air, iPad Air 2, iPad Pro, iPad
- azernik 9y agoYou're behind the times. OSX has moved on from animals to nature preserves. Much more logical.
- SilasX 9y agoXbox, Xbox 360, Xbox One.
- mraison 9y agoWindows 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, 2000, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10
- teraflop 9y agoDon't forget openSUSE: 13.1, 13.2, 42.1, 42.2, 42.3, 15.0