Brief rant: I am getting heartily sick of the now nearly universal practice of giving operating-system releases both names and numbers, then using either at random. Here’s an example of the kind of thing I mean: I want to download the Calibre e-Book manager for my MacBook, but the download page says “calibre works on OS X Leopard and higher”. But the “About This Mac” dialogue just says “Mac OS X Version 10.5.8”. Is that higher or lower than Leopard? Who knows?
Well, Wikipedia does, of course: according to its Mac OS X page, “Leopard” is version 10.5, so my 10.5.8 should be OK. But, really, folks, is it too much to ask that your download pages say “works on OS X 10.5 (Leopard) and higher”? To make things worse, Apple’s brilliant naming scheme uses “Snow Leopard” for 10.6 — I wonder how many people have been caught out by assuming that Leopard and Snow Leopard are the same thing?
So, software producers, please state both name and number of the operating system version your stuff needs.
But, really, operating-system producers, do you need to do this at all? Isn’t it enough just to use numbers? I mean, they have a sort order and everything!
Worst offender here is of course Debian GNU/Linux: Debian releases may have any or all of a name, a number and an additional transient name. So the version called “Lenny” (currently numbered 5.0.7 but I guess it was 5.0 at one point) is also, currently, known as “stable”. “Etch” (version 4.0) doesn’t have a transitory name any more (but it used to be “stable”). The version called “Squeeze”, currently also known as “unstable”, will one day be “stable” (but still “Squeeze”) and will have a version number in the 6.0 space; but currently has no version number at all. This is brain-hurting stuff. I am getting sick of having to go to the Wikipedia page Every. Single. Time. I have any Debian work to do.
Just stop it, people.