4 ms·

Same guy. 100% different project. He required the NetNewsWire name well after the start of this new open source RSS reader.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
If it does the same thing and has the same name and creator, is it really a different project? Many software releases are actually complete rewrites under the hood. The only reason what became Net News Wire 5 originally had a different name is because NNW was owned by BlackPixel at that point.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  In this case, the major version of the software was increased (ie. NetNewsWire 5.0).
- jolux 7y ago
  >If it does the same thing and has the same name and creator, is it really a different project? Yes? I don't even understand how this is a question. >The only reason what became Net News Wire 5 originally had a different name is because NNW was owned by BlackPixel at that point. From the post announcing the new name (https://inessential.com/2018/08/31/netnewswire_comes_home https://inessential.com/2018/08/31/netnewswire_comes_home): >You probably know that I’ve been working on a free and open source reader named Evergreen. Evergreen 1.0 will be renamed NetNewsWire 5.0 — in other words, I’ve been working on NetNewsWire 5.0 all this time without knowing it! There's no evidence there is supposed to be continuity between the projects other than the name changing. You can say it's old school but the entire thing is written in Swift to modern UI standards. Not sure what more you could ask for.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    > Yes? I don't even understand how this is a question. Well that's where we philosophically disagree I guess. To me, version 10 of Mac OS is still the continuation of version 9 of Mac OS, even though they're fundamentally different systems under the hood.
    - jolux 7y ago
      >To me, version 10 of Mac OS is still the continuation of version 9 of Mac OS, even though they're fundamentally different systems under the hood. Sure, and it carries over certain parts and leaves out others. Substantially similar? I'll buy that. Arguably the same thing, ontologically? I think that's a lot harder to prove, which is what the OP I replied to was saying.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

If it does the same thing and has the same name and creator, is it really a different project? Many software releases are actually complete rewrites under the hood. The only reason what became Net News Wire 5 originally had a different name is because NNW was owned by BlackPixel at that point.

Fnoord 7y ago
In this case, the major version of the software was increased (ie. NetNewsWire 5.0).
jolux 7y ago
>If it does the same thing and has the same name and creator, is it really a different project? Yes? I don't even understand how this is a question. >The only reason what became Net News Wire 5 originally had a different name is because NNW was owned by BlackPixel at that point. From the post announcing the new name (https://inessential.com/2018/08/31/netnewswire_comes_home https://inessential.com/2018/08/31/netnewswire_comes_home): >You probably know that I’ve been working on a free and open source reader named Evergreen. Evergreen 1.0 will be renamed NetNewsWire 5.0 — in other words, I’ve been working on NetNewsWire 5.0 all this time without knowing it! There's no evidence there is supposed to be continuity between the projects other than the name changing. You can say it's old school but the entire thing is written in Swift to modern UI standards. Not sure what more you could ask for.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  > Yes? I don't even understand how this is a question. Well that's where we philosophically disagree I guess. To me, version 10 of Mac OS is still the continuation of version 9 of Mac OS, even though they're fundamentally different systems under the hood.
  - jolux 7y ago
    >To me, version 10 of Mac OS is still the continuation of version 9 of Mac OS, even though they're fundamentally different systems under the hood. Sure, and it carries over certain parts and leaves out others. Substantially similar? I'll buy that. Arguably the same thing, ontologically? I think that's a lot harder to prove, which is what the OP I replied to was saying.