RE: freedom scientific weird numerical system
- From: "jim grimsby Jr." <jimgrims@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 17:01:01 -0700
First you are not dealing with the math system here. you are dealing with
version numbers.
So let me explain how this works. 9.0 would be the version number.
This means it is a upgrade. Anything a signal digit that equals a 0 after
the first point is a upgrade. Now we add the second point. This is the
internal number of times the program has been built. So 9.0.1 would be the
first build of 9.0 etc.
Updated build are maid and put out when not enough changes has been made to
deserve a new version number these can be thought of as servus packs. So
let's say you put out 9.0.1 and then built the program 99 times after this
and are ready to put out a servus relece it will be 9.0.100 because this
version as been built 100 times. Ok so when does a program deserve a new
version number. Well this is up to the company in question. This usually
happens when new features have been added verses bug fixes. In the case of
jaws only one new feature was added so the company decided not to change the
version number. The reasons for not wanting to change the version number is
simple. Changing the version number means that they would have to stop
using the older version of the cd they still have in stock. It would also
mean that you could not use the update jaws system you would have to
download and install the wholed program etc. so unless something major gets
change you are going to see a build number.
2. your point about a refrigeration unit is not valid. Refrigeration
units are not be updated where you can apply the updates as a user of the
unit. So the internal information is useless to you. So there would be no
point in making said information available to you. If you want to compare a
thing let us compare two like things. Let's say versions of jaws and
versions of skype. Oh buy the way they also use the same build system. Or
we could talk about the firmware on your dish network box oh buy the way it
also uses a build system. Hmm for so many people to be using this system is
must be working.
3. as for your point about math as I said let's compare two like thing.
All the second point is for is to show you how many times the program has
been built. So a like thing would be hearing the beetles no reply take 22
verses 16. So take 16 would be .0.16 and 23 would be .0.23. ok hope that
makes everything real real clear.
-----Original Message-----
From: jfw-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jfw-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Adrian Spratt
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:32 PM
To: jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: freedom scientific weird numerical system
Promise, this will be my last word on the subject, no matter how tempted I
might be to reply to any future message in this thread. I feel justly
chastened by Allison.
1. All kinds of products, from planes to refrigerators, have complex
internal development numbers, but manufacturers keep the numbering simple
for the public, such as Boeing 767, 777, and so on. Yardbird has it right.
2. For those of us who don't live and breathe technology, a simple numeric
system would make discussion easier and more fluent.
3. In mathematics, decimal point 5 is greater than decimal point 2, no
matter how many digits follow decimal point 2. So for software developers to
make their numbers function otherwise is to confuse mathematicians, not just
amateur tech people like me who learn only what we need in order to make the
software useful for other purposes, whether those be to operate a reception
center or write novels, practice law or manage a store.
----- Original Message -----
From: "jim grimsby Jr." <jimgrims@xxxxxxxxxxx>
It is how every company who makes software lists it. It is not for the end
user it is so they can keep track of updates etc. let's show you some
examples
Skype Version 3.8.0.115
Winamp Version 5.5.3.1938
Microsoft Office Outlook Version 12.0.6300.5000
Get the idea?
-----Original Message-----
From: jfw-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jfw-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Yardbird
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 1:42 PM
To: jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: freedom scientific weird numerical system
Chris,
Yes, what you say here probably does explain it in a literal sense, but what
way is that for a company to list its releases for the end user? The result
is pretty senseless and needlessly confusing for someone like me. Although
I've managed to keep track of which was which, it hasn't been without a lot
more effort than I wish it had been. you know, version 2.0, version 2.1,
version 2.5 and so forth would have been a nice model to follow. Why we end
users, *especially* because we're not just glancing at the numbers visually
and taking them all in at once and "getting it," should be burden with such
extravagant and confusing numbering has always been beyond me. I've just put
up with it because I have the program, and I need it, and so I bear with the
annoyance as an inescapable eccentricity of the company providing me with
that program. But not cheerfully. Not at all. Like Adrian, every time I need
to refer to my version and build number, I have to put up the Jaws window
and open the Help menu. Big drag. And I can't remember from one time to the
next which number it was. Others seem to be fine with this and to revel in
knowingly trotting out build numbers. They say things like "That keystroke
worked okay for me in version 10.9987612, but it doesn't work now in
90093448, so I'm uninstalling it and going back to 99878344, which I believe
was just before the function broke."
, but I'm not among such users. I wish FS would keep their internal
categories to themselves and provide simple, straightforward numbering for
the public releases we wind up using.
IMHO, and so forth, of course. Free country, different strokes, a million
ways to get something done, etc. :-) confusion have to be wtoermented It
always seemed really silly. really extravagent and pretty ----- Original
Message -----
From: "Chris Skarstad" <toonhead@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: freedom scientific weird numerical system
hi. Keep in mind folks, FS often produces versions of JAWS for internal
uses, I.e. Alpha and beta builds, and they usually have sequential numbers.
so that would explain the strange numbering system. We don't see all the
builds that are made, so when a public version comes out, it could be a much
higher number than the previous one. I hope that explains it?
At 03:31 PM 5/12/2008, you wrote: I don't think it's the first time a JAWS
update has come out with a nonsequential number. I also wish FS would
simplify the numbering because we frequently need to refer to update, and
not just version, numbers. I usually take the extra step of checking the
"About" section in JAWS help. It isn't as if there have been 522 separate
updates of version 9.
----- Original Message -----
From: MarkF
Is it just me and all the people I have talked to. numerically speaking jaws
9.00.522 should be the latest update NOT 9.00.2152
This is not the way versions numbers should be labeled .2 comes before .5.
Has anyone else thought this strange?
Mark
The beginning of strife is [like] letting out water, So abandon the quarrel
before it breaks out.
--
JFW related links:
JFW homepage: http://www.freedomscientific.com/
Scripting mailing list:
http://lists.the-jdh.com/listinfo.cgi/scriptography-the-jdh.com
JFW List instructions:
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the
way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the
list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1428 - Release Date: 5/12/2008
7:44 AM
--
JFW related links:
JFW homepage: http://www.freedomscientific.com/
Scripting mailing list:
http://lists.the-jdh.com/listinfo.cgi/scriptography-the-jdh.com
JFW List instructions:
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the
way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the
list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
