And then there's the problem of remembering how to pronounce and spell
these names...
David
On 26 September 2012 09:42, Norman Gray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Malcolm, hello.
>
> On 2012 Sep 25, at 21:55, Malcolm J. Currie wrote:
>
>>> more frequent releases sounds like good news, but I've got one comment.
>>> Perhaps it's just me, but even at <1 release per year I find
>>> the naming, while cute, confusing - is kaulia > kapuahi (and have I
>>> spelt them correctly)? I dunno. Numbers are a great invention.
>>
>> Funny that you should ask. Changing the naming was something we discussed given the increased frequency, and we decided to start afresh in 2013. That might be an Hawaiian name with an epoch so you can choose your preference, or just a plain epoch as we used to have. One idea was to have one name for the year with different suffices to indicate the quarter. That's TBD. Suggestions are welcome.
>
> I do like the device of naming the releases this way, though possibly more so than Mark I have very little idea of which release is which. So I think there's a functional problem rather than an aesthetic or 'branding' problem.
>
> One possibility would be to work through the catalogue in (latin!) alphabetical order, with releases in the same year having the same initial letter. So the first year all the releases would start with 'A', the next with (erm...) 'E', then 'F', then 'H', and so on. That would seem to satisfy the 'which release is after which?' problem (once folk are aware of the scheme).
>
> If that were accompanied by parenthetical epoch+quarter numbering -- '13.1', '13.2', ..., '14.1', '14.2', ... -- then folk could choose which to use.
>
>> The names do emphasize that it's coming out of JAC
>
> A good thing.
>
>> So Frossie omitted A'a (Sirius),
>
> Oh, I _do_ wish she hadn't rejected A'a (though shouldn't that be "A`a" ?)! That would really have sorted out the shell-escaping sheep from goats.
>
>> I agree with you there. Leopard and Snow Leopard are too similar in particular.
>
> (I think the rationale for that was that 10.6 was to some extent advertised as 10.5+1; not that that's much defence)
>
>>> I'm prepared to believe that for OSX this is part of a reasoned campaign to disorient and alienate Apple part-timers, but I don't know
>>
>> Wouldn't that lose Apple business?
>
> Only the business of the lily-livered postulants, who still cling on to the reservations of the damned, and who therefore face an eternity of chronically-unstylish perdition.
>
> See you!
>
> Norman
>
>
> --
> Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
> SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
|