Oh, I get it - he made an OS to talk to DOG. I talk to mine all the time.
* RoboPuppy commencing two hour yipping session *
yip yip yip yip yip
* RoboPuppy mistreatment alert! RoboPuppy mistreatment alert! *
For what software? Certainly not any I use, nor the various versions of MS-DOS from the company in question I used back in the 80s and 90s.
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"
So how does this not make you a worthless freeloader?
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...
That implies we need to use evil compilers to program the Kill-O-Bots.
Man, I somehow always suspected Perl would be the death of us all, but I didn't quite have this in mind!
A lack of sufficient auditing capability is what has kept CACert out of most browser CA bundles.
StartSSL.com provides free entry-level certificates with some level of verification, enough at least to satisfy the major browsers.
Presumably there will be a collision detection mechanism that nixes the old certificate and alerts you to such changes by e-mail.
Yes, there are ways around it, but that's true of any CA.
You woke up and discovered you had installed Windows 2000?
Quite the scary illness you've got there. I'd rather find my horse's cut head.
I don't think they added the horse head option to the installer until Windows XP...
"The soldiers most likely to take their own lives were men with past suicidal behavior and a history of psychiatric disorders and criminal offenses, including weapons possession and verbal assaults."
Hang a long conductor down towards Earth, and harvest the voltage potential.
Here's something that doesn't need 'conspiracy' to understand. Unity is playing bad on the PC because they're issuing 50k draw calls on DX11.
The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place.
Ironically, instead of blaming AMD for this, AMD is actually providing a solution. I don't like it personally, but the Mantle API specifically solves this problem today while we wait for DX12/OpenGL Next.
Of course, it's only available on AMD hardware and besides, because Ubi is in a company wide PR deal with nVidia to use GameWorks(TM) THEY CAN'T USE IT!
So instead of blaming AMD, Ubi should either go sit in a corner (because they know what they did wrong), or they need to look into a mirror (because they don't recognize that they're the real problem)
Buy a VPS for $2 a month and relay to it over a VPN tunnel; Comcast won't be able to get their grubby paws on it.