4 ms·

I guess you could just skip over Rails-6 and go from Rails-5 to Rails-7. Windows 8 went straight to Windows 10. The idea is that backwards incompatibility shou

by troymc 9y ago

I guess you could just skip over Rails-6 and go from Rails-5 to Rails-7. Windows 8 went straight to Windows 10. The idea is that backwards incompatibility should cause a name change, so really any untaken name would do, e.g. Rails-McTavish, Rails-Ocelot, Rails-馄, Rails-0x389, Rails-3.14159, ...

TAForObvReasons 9y ago
> Windows 8 went straight to Windows 10. The alleged reason for skipping windows 9: many software packages were checking for older Windows versions (namely 95/98) by checking if the Windows version string starts with "Windows 9" https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/new_windows_version_will_be_called_windows_10/ckwq83x/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/new_wind...
- half-kh-hacker 9y ago
  So what you're saying is that 'Windows 9' as a viable name was, in a sense, taken?
- gruez 9y ago
  >https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/new_wind.. https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/new_wind.... source: msft employee who isn't even close to the windows team. that explanation ignores the fact that windows spoofs the windows version number for all applications by default (defaults to 8.1 i think), unless you have a special entry in your application manifest. so old applications will still work by default. not to mention that windows has compatibility shims to deal with this exact issue.