Question about version numbers

mac-er

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Apr 9, 2003
1,454
0
I always thought 'point' software updates (as in 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, etc) were for very minor upgrades or fixes.

Is Apple just using the whole 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, etc because they don't want to stop using the whole 'X' thing? I have just always thought that it seems like a lot of upgrades/changes just to bump up the version number by a tenth.

What exactly would have to change for Apple to start using Version 11?
 

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,239
4
mac-er said:
I always thought 'point' software updates (as in 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, etc) were for very minor upgrades or fixes.

Is Apple just using the whole 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, etc because they don't want to stop using the whole 'X' thing? I have just always seems like a lot of upgrades/changes just to bump up the version number by a tenth.

What exactly would have to change for Apple to start using Version 11?
to move to Version 11, apple would have to do a HUGE almost completely re-write type of change to the OS

the 10.1 .2 .3 etc are major updates as well, just not complete system rewrite

apple uses 10.3.1, 10.3.2 as the minor updates, currently we are on 10.3.8 so its the eight update to 10.3
 

Westside guy

macrumors 603
Oct 15, 2003
5,520
2,471
The soggy side of the Pacific NW
And then to confuse things further...

A lot of open-source software - the sort of thing you find in fink, some of which does get ported to use Aqua natively instead of X11 - uses a different scheme. The first number is the major revision, like you'd expect, and the second number is still the minor revision. BUT if the minor revision is an even number (.0, .2, etc.) it is part of the "stable" release set, while odd minor numbers (.1, .3, and so on) are considered unstable "testing" trees - pre-releases for the future stable release that will have the next even number up.

So for example Gimp 2.0.2 would be considered a stable release; while Gimp 2.1.4 would be an unstable development release, focused on getting new features working for the eventual 2.2.x stable releases.

I think this practice started with the Linux kernel, but I could be wrong. In any case many (but not all) open-source software projects follow this scheme.
 

Similar threads

  • Average Pro
0
Replies
0
Views
131
  • Odysee
8
Replies
8
Views
825
Replies
7
Views
671
  • bhogi
2
Replies
2
Views
671
Replies
7
Views
1K
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.