|
|
Re: Binary Versions of Vice [message #139684 is a reply to message #139681] |
Thu, 04 August 2005 10:08 |
|
Originally posted by: Jeremy/Destined
Guinness wrote:
> Jeremy/Destined wrote:
>>
>> Looking over at Funet's cross platform directory for vice, all I
>> seem to find is source code for Vice in Ms DOS and win32 versions
>> 1.5->1.9?
>>
>> Is there a place I can find a copy that does not have to be
>> compiled?
>>
>> Jeremy supercommodore@mail.com
>
> http://www.viceteam.org/
>
> hth.
Guiness,
If you look at the web site, the newest copy at the web site, it lists
1.16.x as the current stable version.. But on ftp.funet.fi and other
places, there are 1.9+ availably as source, but no binaroess??
Jeremy supercommodoreatmail.com
|
|
|
Re: Binary Versions of Vice [message #139685 is a reply to message #139684] |
Thu, 04 August 2005 19:41 |
rcade
Messages: 55 Registered: February 2005
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Jeremy/Destined wrote:
> Guinness wrote:
>
>
>> Jeremy/Destined wrote:
>>
>>> Looking over at Funet's cross platform directory for vice, all I
>>> seem to find is source code for Vice in Ms DOS and win32 versions
>>> 1.5->1.9?
>>>
>>> Is there a place I can find a copy that does not have to be
>>> compiled?
>>>
>>> Jeremy supercommodore@mail.com
>>
>> http://www.viceteam.org/
>>
>> hth.
>
>
> Guiness,
>
> If you look at the web site, the newest copy at the web site, it lists
> 1.16.x as the current stable version.. But on ftp.funet.fi and other
> places, there are 1.9+ availably as source, but no binaroess??
>
> Jeremy supercommodoreatmail.com
The version numbers are confusing until you realize the numbering. I
think you are thinking 1.9 is newer than 1.16, which isn't the case
here. It's uncommon, but they are incrementing the whole number after
the decimal with each version
In other words, 1.16 would not a bugfix to 1.1 as is common practive.
Version 1.10 was the version released after 1.9.
--
-
Pete Rittwage
http://rittwage.com
|
|
|
Re: Binary Versions of Vice [message #139687 is a reply to message #139685] |
Fri, 05 August 2005 16:44 |
BlackJack
Messages: 152 Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:41:15 -0400, Pete Rittwage wrote:
> The version numbers are confusing until you realize the numbering. I
> think you are thinking 1.9 is newer than 1.16, which isn't the case
> here. It's uncommon, but they are incrementing the whole number after
> the decimal with each version
It's just confusing if you think of it as floating point number and not as
"outline" number like chapter/section numbering in books.
> In other words, 1.16 would not a bugfix to 1.1 as is common practive.
Where is this common practice? Never saw this. Common practice is 1.1.6
as bugfix for a 1.1 version.
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
|
|
|
Re: Binary Versions of Vice [message #139688 is a reply to message #139687] |
Fri, 05 August 2005 18:06 |
rcade
Messages: 55 Registered: February 2005
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
BlackJack wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:41:15 -0400, Pete Rittwage wrote:
>
>
>> The version numbers are confusing until you realize the numbering. I
>> think you are thinking 1.9 is newer than 1.16, which isn't the case
>> here. It's uncommon, but they are incrementing the whole number after
>> the decimal with each version
>
>
> It's just confusing if you think of it as floating point number and not as
> "outline" number like chapter/section numbering in books.
>
>
>> In other words, 1.16 would not a bugfix to 1.1 as is common practive.
>
>
> Where is this common practice? Never saw this. Common practice is 1.1.6
> as bugfix for a 1.1 version.
>
> Ciao,
> Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Windows 3.11 was the version released after 3.1.
Amiga Workbench 2.04 (and later 2.05) were versions released after 2.0
(this is a different example, actually).
I know there's others, but they escape me. I have seen the x.x.x method
also.
Then there's the crazy numbering of MAME releases, which all must start
with 0.x.
I guess there is no standard or common practice, so I mispoke. But the
WinVICE numbering confused me at first also.
--
-
Pete Rittwage
http://rittwage.com
|
|
|
Re: Binary Versions of Vice [message #139689 is a reply to message #139685] |
Sat, 06 August 2005 01:13 |
|
Originally posted by: Jeremy/Destined
Pete Rittwage wrote:
> Jeremy/Destined wrote:
>> Guinness wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Jeremy/Destined wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking over at Funet's cross platform directory for vice, all I
>>>> seem to find is source code for Vice in Ms DOS and win32
>>>> versions 1.5->1.9?
>>>>
>>>> Is there a place I can find a copy that does not have to be
>>>> compiled?
>>>>
>>>> Jeremy supercommodore@mail.com
>>>
>>> http://www.viceteam.org/
>>>
>>> hth.
>>
>>
>> Guiness,
>>
>> If you look at the web site, the newest copy at the web site, it
>> lists 1.16.x as the current stable version.. But on ftp.funet.fi
>> and other places, there are 1.9+ availably as source, but no
>> binaroess??
>>
>> Jeremy supercommodoreatmail.com
>
> The version numbers are confusing until you realize the numbering. I
> think you are thinking 1.9 is newer than 1.16, which isn't the case
> here. It's uncommon, but they are incrementing the whole number
> after the decimal with each version
>
> In other words, 1.16 would not a bugfix to 1.1 as is common practive.
> Version 1.10 was the version released after 1.9.
Thanks for the information Peter! :-) Now the mass confusion over that
is quite cleared up about why I was just finding 1.8-1.14 source and
thought there should have been higher binaries than that..
going to have to run over and see if I have a newest copy of vice any
ways..
Jeremy supercommodoreatmaildotcom
|
|
|
Re: Binary Versions of Vice [message #139690 is a reply to message #139685] |
Sat, 06 August 2005 08:20 |
Martijn van Buul
Messages: 326 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It occurred to me that Pete Rittwage wrote in comp.emulators.cbm:
> The version numbers are confusing until you realize the numbering. I
> think you are thinking 1.9 is newer than 1.16, which isn't the case
> here. It's uncommon, but they are incrementing the whole number after
> the decimal with each version
This is *SO* uncommon, that in fact every program out there uses this
numbering system!
--
Martijn van Buul - pino@dohd.org - http://www.stack.nl/~martijnb/
Geek code: G-- - Visit OuterSpace: mud.stack.nl 3333
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...' Isaac Asimov
|
|
|
Re: Binary Versions of Vice [message #139691 is a reply to message #139688] |
Sat, 06 August 2005 08:25 |
Martijn van Buul
Messages: 326 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It occurred to me that Pete Rittwage wrote in comp.emulators.cbm:
> Windows 3.11 was the version released after 3.1.
Yes, you might want to wonder whatever happened to 3.2 to 3.10.
> Then there's the crazy numbering of MAME releases, which all must start
> with 0.x.
No, it's not. And once again, it's not crazy. It's very common to have
beta, not-quite-ripe-for-final-release versions numbered in 0.*. This way,
version 1.0 is something that is actually DONE and in a working order. It
is a very common practice. The only thing that's silly is the fact that
MAME insists on remaining alpha.
> I guess there is no standard or common practice, so I mispoke. But the
> WinVICE numbering confused me at first also.
I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions by concluding that VICE must
be stupid and silly. I think you should have concluded that your own
ideas are off.
--
Martijn van Buul - pino@dohd.org - http://www.stack.nl/~martijnb/
Geek code: G-- - Visit OuterSpace: mud.stack.nl 3333
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...' Isaac Asimov
|
|
|
Re: Binary Versions of Vice [message #139692 is a reply to message #139691] |
Sat, 06 August 2005 10:23 |
rcade
Messages: 55 Registered: February 2005
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Martijn van Buul wrote:
> It occurred to me that Pete Rittwage wrote in comp.emulators.cbm:
>
>> Windows 3.11 was the version released after 3.1.
>
>
> Yes, you might want to wonder whatever happened to 3.2 to 3.10.
>
>
>> Then there's the crazy numbering of MAME releases, which all must start
>> with 0.x.
>
>
> No, it's not. And once again, it's not crazy. It's very common to have
> beta, not-quite-ripe-for-final-release versions numbered in 0.*. This way,
> version 1.0 is something that is actually DONE and in a working order. It
> is a very common practice. The only thing that's silly is the fact that
> MAME insists on remaining alpha.
>
>
>> I guess there is no standard or common practice, so I mispoke. But the
>> WinVICE numbering confused me at first also.
>
>
> I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions by concluding that VICE must
> be stupid and silly. I think you should have concluded that your own
> ideas are off.
>
Nothing was ever said about "stupid" or "silly"? I said "uncommon"
which is hardly derogatory.
--
-
Pete Rittwage
http://rittwage.com
|
|
|
Re: Binary Versions of Vice [message #139700 is a reply to message #139691] |
Thu, 11 August 2005 05:41 |
Anders Carlsson
Messages: 776 Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Martijn van Buul <pino@dohd.org> writes:
> The only thing that's silly is the fact that
> MAME insists on remaining alpha.
I think it is the programming team being humble (and trying to avoid
the most dumb error reports) by keeping the version number as a 0.x
alpha version. Quite some useful C= related software also remains
as 0.x versions for a very long time. IIRC, even VICE went up to 0.16
or higher before the 1.0 version was delivered.
Some people may consider an emulator should never reach a 1.0 version,
as there always will be things it does not emulate to 101% perfection.
--
Anders Carlsson
|
|
|