<CT> Re: Calmira 3.11... 3.2... 4.0?
- From: "Martin B. Brilliant" <mbrilliant@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: calmira_tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 06:24:49 -0400
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 06:58:50 -0500, "Ross Nelson" <coutcin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >Look at the sequence of MS Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 ...
> >... On that scale, does the
> >new Calmira measure up to an integer increment?
>
> Do we really want to flatter M$ by using their bugware as the basis
> for the version-ing of such a great program like Calmira? ...
We flatter M$ already by building Calmira to run on top of a M$
product and to emulate the user interface of another M$ product -
with improvements.
To follow the same theme: I suggest that M$ did right in numbering
Windows, up to the point where they started using bogus year numbers
instead of decimal version numbers. Win 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 have
clearly different user interfaces, while Win 3.1 has basically the
same user interface as 3.0, but with improvements inside, and Win
3.11 (not WfW 3.11) has even smaller improvements on Win 3.1. I can
follow that. I can't follow the arbitrary scheme they're using now.
Is Win 98 a major or minor change from Win 95? Is Win 2000 a major or
minor change from Win 98? Why should there be a difference between
Win 2000 and Win Millennium - is Millenium supposed to mean 2001?
Which versions are NT (new technology, meaning totally 32-bit with no
DOS at the bottom)? I can't tell any more!
The tradition of Calmira is to use what is good from M$, and eschew
that which is evil. Therefore I suggest that the next Calmira be
called Calmira 3.2 or 3.11, not Calmira 2001 or Calmira 4.0.
Marty
Martin B. Brilliant at home in Holmdel, NJ
http://www.netlabs.net/hp/marty/
To unsubscribe, send a message to listar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe calmira_tips" in the body.
OR visit http://freelists.dhs.org
Other related posts:
