On Wednesday, 07/08/2009 at 10:37 EDT, RPN01 <[email protected]> wrote: > If I remember the story correctly, you won't see a version such as 6.0, > because in IBM wisdom, this would imply that there would be following > releases (due to the decimal). Now why it's ok to have 6.1, and why that > doesn't carry the same implication, I don't know.
Actually, Phil had the right of it. IBM operating systems are built with "version", "release", and "modification level". The latter could be thought of as "refresh level", but has been effectively mothballed. In our universe, a "version" is a product. It has an associated set of terms & conditions and technology base (ALS). Within that context we produce instances of the product (a release). For there to be a 6.0, there must be Version 6 Release 0. Other often products use "version" less formally. As Ethan says, it is also customary to leave off "Version 1" from a product name even though all the programming interfaces will indicate "Version 1 Release 1 Modification 0", with z/OS being the current poster child for this practice. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
