* RoboPuppy commencing two hour yipping session *

yip yip yip yip yip ... KICK

* RoboPuppy mistreatment alert! RoboPuppy mistreatment alert! *

Back from the 60s one heavily used convention was: [major-version] dot [minor-version] dot [revision]

The dots are separators not unlike those in an IP address, not decimal places (of which more then one of doesn't make much sense)
Within the same major-version number the API would remain backwards compatible. New commands may be added in, but old existing commands should both still exist and still function identically.
Within the same minor-version (rev changes) the API would remain identical and data/file formats would keep the same structure.

This would allow the operator to assume a revision update can be installed at will and not worry much about breaking compatibility for anything not listed in the change log.
One could also assume any additional applications made to work with the upgrading app should still function without modification, at least if you follow the API docs and don't do anything too hacky.

For minor-version updates you assumed API using additions and apps should still work, but anything hacky by-passing the API due to limitations needs revisited and possibly edited.
An example is one program that creates input to the program in question via documented API calls should be fine, but your second program that is run after output being generated that goes to parse internal data files you "shouldn't" be touching likely will break until updated to parse the new data file structure.

For major-version updates, all bets are off. Pretend it is a brand new app and all interaction with it by other system components may need redesigned or be obsoleted.

Of course version numbers are only conventions. Those conventions can be changed to mean something more fitting for your particular software.
Or simplified to "Start at 1.0 and keep adding one" if you can predict not many updates being needed or for very simple one-off script type things.
Dates have turned out to be quite convenient version numbers with the time making a good developer compile/commit identifier that already keeps revisions in the correct order.

The only real rule is "pick a convention and stay consistent for the life of that software, else the wrath of dragons upon your head be"

It makes me not a worthless freeloader in exactly the same way as you using an ad network doesn't make you a script kiddie hacker trying to infect millions of peoples computers with malware viruses and keyloggers deserving of imprisonment.

But if you insist on going there, allow me to remind you that my actions of not watching an ad are perfectly legal (and explicitly stated so in law), while your actions of infecting millions of computers is explicitly a federal criminal offense...

Man, I somehow always suspected Perl would be the death of us all, but I didn't quite have this in mind!

I don't think they added the horse head option to the installer until Windows XP...

As someone who has had meat digesting microbes in my intestines die, I can say that the pains of moving undigested matter through your system are quite different from salmonella or other types of food poisoning.

Perhaps if you swallow a bunch of metal coins it would hurt similarly to those eating meats, but one would hope that eating coins wouldn't be a common occurrence :P

Not to mention there is no projectile diarrhea or urge to vomit, and the pains are only over the intestines instead of both stomach and then later the intestines.

Eating meat also doesn't result in a fever, although I'm not sure if that happens to others after food poisoning or it's just me.

You are a criminal too, even if you have managed not to get caught yet.
Thank you for permission to beat and kill you since you wouldn't be my victim.

In this one case maybe, but if they really do refuse to serve meals one medically needs to obtain nutrition, then this same policy - while "only" a moral issue to Sunde - is a sentence to slow death by starvation to those lacking the microbes to digest meat at all.

3) If you intentionally starve yourself the only person you're hurting is you.

And when the prison is intentionally starving you by action similar to serving you nothing but water to eat, then the only person hurting others is the prison itself.

You could always go volenteer 40 hours a week for free for them, and bring along 10000 of your friends willing to work for free too.

No? I guess it's only OK for you to want paid but not OK for anyone else to want the same?

But when I go to the theater I only steal movie reels to take home.

Every time I download a movie, I feel extra horrible inside knowing the MPAA still has their original copy and thus are not harmed any, so had to change tactics :P

I thought history has shown that killing all the poor people is the best road to alleviate poverty on a grand scale :P

There is a saying I picked up somewhere that feels especially apt
"There are three things you never discuss with coworkers: Politics, Religion, and The Great Pumpkin"

I'm glad we aren't all anonymous psychopaths only out looking for peoples buttons to push needlessly.

But I have 65GB of memory, you insensitive clod!

My favorite ones are the Creationists against GMO foods due to the risk of an unknown modification being introduced to the environment running amok and killing all the plants, us, or both. All while arguing evolution doesn't exist and doesn't happen!

The fact such people exists always makes me laugh.
The fact some of those people are in positions of power however makes me cry for humanity.

No, because renaming it has the same effects on existing systems. The installed package "ownCloud" is no longer there (by that name) so future usage of apt-get can still break.

I'm less familiar with Ubuntu specifically but have extensive Debian experience, so can't comment on the Ubuntu policy, but I suspect Ubuntu views this more as removing a package is them breaking package management on existing systems, vs leaving it as is would still be breaking the system due to the vulnerabilities but not Ubuntu's fault (which I still find arguable, but again it's also just my guess)

Debian stable will also out right refuse to break apt by removing a package, however Debian has a large security patch repo plus a huge backports repo and community - which typically spends their own time back porting patches for newer app versions from the original developers back to older versions the devs stopped patching.

Many years ago at least Ubuntu still did not have the infrastructure for this nor dedicated any man power to the task. Sounds like that is still at least partially the case there.

This is also why ownCloud distributes their stuff in their own repo, which is the best way to go about it (so props to ownCloud there)
That way it is completely up to them how "stable" they want their software to be viewed.
They can either force people to upgrade to a new major version, breaking all existing installs until configs can be updated - or they can try to be stable and backport patches - or anything in between.

It's just mind boggling some dip decided that despite the fact ownCloud has their own maintained packages and even a repo for them, that it would at all be necessary to claim "now i'm the package maintainer!" and put it in Ubuntus repo...

Was this Ubuntus direct doing?
In Debian only the core system is packaged by their own team. 3rd party stuff however anyone can step up and decide to be the package maintainer, compiling from src to debian standards and releasing debs. But it's usually easier to see who to point the finger at in that case.

*noob voice enable*

Well no, I take a screenshot of the video, which is then embedded unscalable in an excel file, which I paste into a word document, which I then send in a mime encoded email to the entire company directory.
I mean, this is the internet after all, it's not like some form of file transfer protocol exists or anything!