<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.

Martin B. Brilliant at home in Holmdel, NJ
To unsubscribe, send a message to listar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe calmira_tips" in the body. 
OR visit http://freelists.dhs.org

Other related posts: