The same reason that Microsoft jumped in the numbering of the Word versions (I forget what the jump was) - they're idiots.
Or perhaps not, your point about bigger being perceived as better holds a lot of credence, although personaly I check the version numbers of the packages which are included; I'm technicaly running RedHat 5.2; I just upgrade everything myself.
I would say that whoever creates the database owns it; but what do they own? If the database contains personal information surely the individual records "belong" to whoever they concern?
Possibly creating a database means you own the right to control access to it; and to assign control over the data in it.
Anyone know if the Data Protection Act in the UK says anything about ownership of databases and the data within them? I know it says that you have the right to view any personal data held on file (either physical file or stored in a computer system) and something about being able correct that data if it's incorrect.
What I want to know is, what's wrong with the old boring v1, v2, v3, etc - with sub-revisions if you really need them?
I mean, I can't see the point in using years - even if the software is released in that year, it's more than likely going to have updates outside of that year; so the name become irrelevant.
Let's face it, Windows doesn't actually use years for the version number - if you ask Win98 what version it is it'll give a number like 4.10.1998. Windows 98 is just its name, not its version number.
The only Y2K problem I'm hoping to see is them setting fire to the House of Commons when they have their River of Fire on the Thames; maybe even starting The Second Great Fire of London.
Slashdot Mirror
The same reason that Microsoft jumped in the numbering of the Word versions (I forget what the jump was) - they're idiots.
Or perhaps not, your point about bigger being perceived as better holds a lot of credence, although personaly I check the version numbers of the packages which are included; I'm technicaly running RedHat 5.2; I just upgrade everything myself.
I can't stand cheap marketing tricks.
I would say that whoever creates the database owns it; but what do they own? If the database contains personal information surely the individual records "belong" to whoever they concern?
Possibly creating a database means you own the right to control access to it; and to assign control over the data in it.
Anyone know if the Data Protection Act in the UK says anything about ownership of databases and the data within them? I know it says that you have the right to view any personal data held on file (either physical file or stored in a computer system) and something about being able correct that data if it's incorrect.
Buggered if I know.
"Thusly" just sounded better than "thus".
What I want to know is, what's wrong with the old boring v1, v2, v3, etc - with sub-revisions if you really need them?
I mean, I can't see the point in using years - even if the software is released in that year, it's more than likely going to have updates outside of that year; so the name become irrelevant.
Let's face it, Windows doesn't actually use years for the version number - if you ask Win98 what version it is it'll give a number like 4.10.1998. Windows 98 is just its name, not its version number.
Well, y2k is here and my network is doing thusly:-
All in all a pretty boring night, they didn't even manage to set lite to London or the Houses of Parliment - oh well.
The only Y2K problem I'm hoping to see is them setting fire to the House of Commons when they have their River of Fire on the Thames; maybe even starting The Second Great Fire of London.
Now that would make a memorable new year.