Not happy with WordPad

[RocketGrunt]

@Britva415 wrote "real" release. Version 4 was released in 2013. 4.1 was released in 2014.

So ....

This is an incredibly weird take. In software, the choice of whether to increment the version number before the dot, or after the dot, or even after the second dot is completely arbitrary.

LibreOffice considers itself to be on version 25, just 14 years after forking. But that just means that they are trigger happy with incrementing version numbers. It says absolutely nothing about the extent of the changes or the desirability of the changes made with any particular version number.

Real example: Dungeon Keeper 2's Jack-in-the-Box trap only exists when the game is patched, and the patch is called "Version 1.7" It's a major change to the game, and the version increment is decided to be fractional. Because the decision of whether to call it "version 2.0" or "version 1.7" is totally arbitrary and means actually nothing.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

Have you looked at the release notes? New features are barely noticeable, e. g. changing the Lithuanian default currency to the Euro. 4.1.4's biggest change: switching the Apache logo. Seriously, the actual core program has barely changed at all.

 

[TheLobster]

In software, the choice of whether to increment the version number before the dot, or after the dot, or even after the second dot is completely arbitrary.

A pedant in me has to point out that this depends on the particular piece of software.

Sometimes, and I want to say increasingly more often, the version number and its increments are actually rather meaningful. Semantic versioning scheme is the obvious and most widely followed example of a convention where the change in each number is supposed to happen only under certain conditions (breaking change vs. feature additions vs. bugfixes only). Quite a few open source applications and software packages follow this scheme, and if the one @Britva415 was talking about does as well, then you can definitely ascribe meaning to the fact they have only incremented the minor version over the course of a year.

(The meaning being either that the project doesn't have enough resources to be actively developed at a reasonable pace; or alternatively, if it's already largely feature-complete, that it's a mature and stable piece of software that doesn't change much because it simply doesn't need to).

 

[Britva415]

It doesn't matter what versioning scheme that particular project follows. It simply isn't an active project. Its own maintaining organization SAYS it's insecure because of the lack of developers. They may have made a maintenance release as recently as November, but anyone who would represent that as being of the same quality, security and feature-completeness as any of LibreOffice's releases for the past decade or more is either uninformed or deliberately obtuse or just pushing back because it's all they have to fill their day with.