Why Are Operating System Version Names So Absurd?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Are Operating System Version Names So Absurd?

Posted by timothy on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @05:09AM from the bet-you-can-think-of-a-few-reasons dept.

jfruh writes "Apple's spent more than a decade on version 10 — or, rather, X — of its flagship operating system, with .x versions named after big cats (and many of them, it turns out, after the same big cats). Ubuntu Linux is scrambling to find ever more obscure animals to alliteratively name its versions after. And let's not even talk about Windows, whose current shipping OS is sold as Windows 7 but is really Windows NT 6.1. Why is this area of software marketing so ridiculous?"

15 of 460 comments (clear)

And what's the deal with names anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 05:10 · Score: 5, Funny

My friend Peter is not a rock, and my friend Thomas isn't even a twin.
1. Re:And what's the deal with names anyway? by hairyfeet · 2012-09-11 06:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Besides that, isn't TFA judging Windows by the exact same thing we are told NOT to judge by when it comes to Linux, aka 'Linux is just a kernel'? After all it is the kernel that is WinNT 6.1 whereas the distro (again using Linux terminology) is Windows 7.
  Can't have your cake and eat it to, rules are rules and if you want people to call it Ubuntu Myopic Monkey instead of Linux then call Windows by the name and OSX by the name.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Easy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 05:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

You cannot trademark numbers.
Also, for most non-techies, it is easier to remember "Tiger" than "10.4"
1. Re:Easy by vlm · 2012-09-11 05:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You cannot trademark numbers.
  Also, for most non-techies, it is easier to remember "Tiger" than "10.4"
  I'd disagree on the latter. Which came first, Debian Potatoe or Debian Sarge? Damfino (well, actually I do, but,...) However every noob knows 2005 is more recent than 2000.
  Where I work, internally, its all git-flow, and our releases have really boring, yet informative, names which are basically of the format:
  release/`date +%Y-%M-%d`
  Like today's heroic effort would be release/2012-09-11
  This date structure also helps with git-flow features, obviously you can't have two "add some bs" branches but you can have "2012-06-01-add-some-bs" and "2012-08-13-add-some-bs"
  If one of my coworkers gets outta whack about last monday's release I know exactly what he's talking about, that would be release/2012-08-27 Or I can even find 2012-06-18. But "Rumbly Rumpelstiltskin v2.1D" WTF is that? thats just unprofessional.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
2. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 06:03 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Which came first, Debian Potatoe or Debian Sarge?
  Which came first, Debian Chicken or Debian Egg?
3. Re:Easy by Andrewkov · 2012-09-11 06:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Still better than their other naming convention, "The New iPad".
  Not sure what the next one will be called..
Or Fifa 98 by Mr.+Kinky · 2012-09-11 05:12 · Score: 5, Funny

Can you believe that Fifa 98 was really made in 1997?! WOOOHOO!
Solaris? by Dog-Cow · 2012-09-11 05:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

And Solaris 2.x is SunOS 5.x. There's the software version and then there's the marketing name. If you haven't noticed, Windows NT went 3.1, 3.5, 4.0, 2000, XP/2003, 7/2008, 2012, 8.
It's not really any more ridiculous than any other marketing effort.
Because Marketing != Version Control by Aquitaine · 2012-09-11 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Naming a product to sell it in a commercial market has got nothing to do with internal release milestones, and you don't have to be a marketing expert to realize that 'Windows 11' doesn't sound especially cool, whereas 'X' or 'Wild Giraffe' both sound awesome.
The question is more ridiculous than the discrepancy.
what a waste of time by cynop · 2012-09-11 05:17 · Score: 5, Informative

i suppose MsDOS 6.22, windows 3.11, system V and AmigaOS 3.1 were much more meaningfull, right? jeez, TFA is a waste of time
Re:Marketing by Dogtanian · 2012-09-11 05:30 · Score: 5, Funny

Probably true, but they're going downhill on the feline names already.
I hope they don't change before we get "OS X Domestic Cat".

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:Marketing by crazyjj · 2012-09-11 05:44 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, for some reason, they already rejected my suggestion: "OS X Pussy"

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:talk about it on /.? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 06:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

If you type "/." in your address bar in Opera, it will take you to slashdot.
Re:Marketing by Ralphus+Maximus · 2012-09-11 06:41 · Score: 5, Funny

OS X Hello Kitty

--
Nobody's as dumb, as I appear to be
The real reason Windows has the version number... by mystikkman · 2012-09-11 07:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

The summary, folks here and the TFA(didn't read fully!) seem to be missing the point about why the internal Windows Version is 6.1 for Windows 7. The reason is that a LOT of software, drivers and other utilities have this kind of code in them:

if(first letter of Windows Version Number) is not 6 Print 'Error, OS not compatible'
Even though the software is fully compatible with the OS(because they didn't change the driver model from Vista), the non updated software from old CDs etc. throw up this error. To get around this issue, Windows internally names it 6.1, so the offending software thinks it's on some Vista service pack. Also, this is an *internal* version number compared to Apple's and Ubuntu's OSes which are the marketing names, so I don't even see why this was brought up except as flamebait.