Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Is OS 10. Afterall was it not common to call prior
    versions OS 9 etc.?

    This of course makes /MacOS X v?10\.\d+/ incredibly redundant/l4m3.
    --
    Were that I say, pancakes?
    • Is OS 10.

      No, it's not. There is no Mac OS 10. It is Mac OS X, version 10.

      Afterall was it not common to call prior versions OS 9 etc.?

      There is no version of Mac OS *after* version 9, so it isn't "prior" to anything. Mac OS X is not Mac OS; Mac OS 9 is not a prior version of Mac OS, it is the current version.

      Mac OS and Mac OS X are different operating systems; it makes no sense to say that Mac OS X is a later version of the same OS, or that Mac OS 9 is an earlier version of the same OS. They are no
      • Regardless, no, no one called it "OS 9" or "OS 8". I'd never once heard that, until Mac OS X came along.

        I did. And still do. Please don't confuse what you have never heard with what doesn't exist. In the context of "Mac OS," I find "OS 8", "OS 9", and "OS X" all perfectly acceptable.
        • by pudge (1) on 2002.08.07 13:41 (#11521) Homepage Journal
          I'm sorry if you take literally a statement like "no one ever said that," since it is impossible to take literally ...

          And while you may find them acceptable, I do not. You are free to find them acceptable, and I am free to think they are stupid. :)