Releasing a new product at Version 2 or 3 instead of V1?

I am not sure if this is the right forum. I am posting this here because I figured this had to do with the economy somehow?

Why would any product developer in SL or out of SL release a brand new product at Version 2 ot Version 3??? It seems if the product was in Alpha testing that it would have been BETA or ALPHA before it was released so that it would be at version 1.0 or something close to 1 when it was released to the publc.

I ask because I purchased a product that was new on the SL market which boasted to be version 2, but had just came out. It's confusing because when I see that I think maybe its an older product that has been around a while. But instead it turned out to be a cheap imitation of another product made by someon else.

Anyway, I was just wondering how versions work. Is it primarily up to the product maker/developer to assign version numbers to their stuff or is there some rhyme and reasoning to it?

Thanks for your input in helping me understand this.
Zzzzzzz

Versions are entirely up to the creator - there's a vague "standard" that the first stable release is 1.0 and patches/fixes incement behind the decimal and revisions (new features or reworked features) increment in front of the decimal.

I use the "mark" system for most of my stuff.

there is a real-world example of software released as "version 3" to make it appear established, though I do forget what software that was...

Caveat emptor.

Over,

Typically developers of any kind do not release software at version 2 or 3 or 4...etc. It should be released at version 1 or A because that's the first number or the first letter in the alphabet.

Prior to release, I believe that they would do ALPHA testing which is In-house testing of a software product. After that, they would start BETA testing which is User testing of the product.

It does seem misleading to release a product at version 2+ when no one has seen it at version 1. I agree.


Generally, a version is a checkpoint at which a particular thing or idea varies from its previous state or condition.
Taken from: http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&ei=U1MuROOmO4aSacnYmOMD&sig2=EO8iZ9Ap5ON7f4n63OvXGw&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_version

Software Version Control:
Management of changes or revisions to a specific baseline software module or application. Software version control provides a mechanism to control changes and to return to any previous revision of the application or module.


That's just some info to help you in your quest for knowledge.

Hey Jillian, do you have a resource for the "Mark" System (a link).
Thanks!

Nup. Sorry.

I just call each revision a new mark, and any patch or fix gets a new letter. The first version isn't stamped (no Mk1). Mk 2, Mk 2a, Mk 3... etc. I chose it 'cause it sounds all aircraftish.

heh. If it works! Work it!

Maybe a V1 was first only spread around friends. And afterwards realised that with a couple of upgrades it would sell aswell. To make sure there weren't conflicting version numbers the first public realise would be V2. Just a theory of why, it's still wierd.

It's solely up to creators.

If I sold you my build scripts right now, you would get Generation 3 Build 2, or "3.2" for short. Just because the earlier version didn't get sold to teh general public doesn't mean they didn't exist, and I don't want to ever pick the wrong script from my inventory beause I renamed things for commercial reasons.

I number my own scripts starting from 0.00. Until now i never had it reach 1.0 before i ever wanted to release it. I just bump it to 1.0 when done. Have a few RC1, RC2, etc.. before that aswell. And then i just start numbering from 1.01 if i start working on updates.

Perhaps you would do well to remember that a lot of the people working and selling things in SL are not professional developers, scripters or builders, they are people who are pursuing their hobby in SL.

I have made a number of things which have started with a version 2 or 3, commercially. Sometimes I will make a chair, use an animation for it, and then realise pretty quickly that I have another which would be better - or more widely attractive. so the first one will become v1, and v2 will be the only one sold. There is no attempt to defraud the SL buyer, or to hoodwink them into thinking that it is new and improved.

The versions, marks, numbers or letters are there to ensure that you don't mix up the different versions. It's a device to ensure that you don't replace v2 with v1 by mistake. Most people only use them to distinguish the stuff int he inventory, not to inform or confuse the customer.
Cali

Version are not used so you do not "mix up your inventory" or your salad, or your french fries, or your underwear, or your phone book, or your directions to the store, or your hair brush.

Sounds like a crock o' bologna!

Now that you know what it's used for...USE IT CORRECTLY pleez!

why are you insulting cali? that is how she does it so why are you saying that its a crock of bologne? personally in all FOUR posts you have posted youve come off soundin like someone with a chip on their shoulder...id lay off the people with the solid rep for awhile if i were you.

Sounds like your manners are a crock o'bologna. I don't think you could have picked a more appropriate surname.

Who needs manners when we have the truth?

Honestly i think assuming that just because something is new on the SL market means its new to the person creating it, is probably too great a leap.

I've been working on some internal scripted tools for my own use for a long time now, many of them are at version 1.5, 2 or even 2.5 etc...

If/when i do ever release them for public use, chances are i will just continue to use the same versioning i had used for my own tracking, personally. i.e. it may be luskwood security object version 2.0 that launches that, for example.

simply because i don't believe in its current state (1.6) its quite ready for public use, there aren't enough safeguards and the interface is not where i beleive a commercial or even public domain object should be.

Yeah somestimes v1 is in development, or you never hear about it until v2 comes out. I do the same thing - and that's how I work.

My own products which all are 1.5 2.0 1.3 etc are numbered as such because the first versions were for my own use only, or close friends... then after months of nagging on there part I finally released it to the public. I'm not about to go and change everything back to v1.0 just because it's gone public.

Something could have its first public distribution in SL as version 2 because earlier versions were restricted distribution, because version 1 was in some other medium, or because the product was something that wasn't originally intended for distribution at all. Or because the maker's pulling a Solaris.

AT&T's first wide release of UNIX was Version 6. Previous versions were internal or limited distribution versions numbered "1st Edition" through "5th Edition". They continued this internal numbering through "10th edition", but the first commercial release was "System III". The first public release of Windows NT used a Windows 3.1 shell, and was released as Windows NT 3.1.

Sun's UNIX was released as Sun OS though SunOS 4. When they incorporated UNIX System V components, the next release was "Solaris 2.0"... all the previous SunOS versions were summarised as "Solaris 1". At some point, between Solaris 2.7 and 2.8 I believe, the "2." was dropped and so it jumped from "Solaris 2.7" to "Solaris 8".

Lotsa reasons. Quit griping about it.

...and now you can get Solaris 10.

And guess what? Its free if you have an account at sun.com.
Lucky me..

sol-10-u1-ga-x86-dvd-iso-a.zip
sol-10-u1-ga-x86-dvd-iso-b.zip
sol-10-u1-ga-x86-dvd-iso-c.zip
sol-10-u1-ga-x86-dvd-iso-d.zip
sol-10-u1-ga-x86-dvd-iso-e.zip
sol-10-u1-companion-ga-iso.zip

reserve...nothing against you whatsoever but your penguin dood in your sig has me crackin up...your isp is aol and it says i own joo beotch? good one! *walks away laughin*

And worth every penny of it.

Why on earth would you want to run Solaris on Intel?

If you want "real UNIX", FreeBSD is the real standard UNIX these days.

If you want "UNIX applications", get Dead Rat... I mean Red Hat.

If you want the best UNIX desktop possible, get a Mac.

Well, generally, at least with me, v1 is the 'I built it... might be crap, but it's something' stage, and by v2, it's mostly redone.

I can send over a couple items I have that are betwwn '1.5' and '1.9' so you can see the differences... it might just be a prop sword, but I've spent some time working on it because I want it to be good.

My personal feeling is that they are starting to realize that their ship is rapidly sinking. As the competition advances, their status as the elite crumbles more and more.

Not that their stuff isn't cool, or useful. I have a pet octane, although it does very little aside from being a toy for me.

Mmmm... Windows 3.1... Now that takes me back. I should try installing it for a laugh and see it can even cope with a Pentium 4

Some good comments on versioning here.

As someone else here mentioned, I start every project in every programming language at v0.00. The first number is for MAJOR builds, second is Minor and third is build, for minor changes I'd increment the third digit, for new features the minor and for a complete program overhaul a major version change.

The versioning game happens with a lot of RL businesses. How many version of AOL have come out now and yet many are still like v3.0 10 years ago.

I think raising the MAJOR version number of a product without a substantial overhaul of the program is mostly a promotion tactic. Most companies do not rewirte their software every 6-12 months. Note that Microsoft just uses year denotions (Office 2007), they don't even try to do Windows v12.0 or something, they just change the name: Windows ME, Windows XP, Windows Vista, etc.

As a prosepective customer I'd look for a changelog. If you see somebody come out with v2.0 and have no changelog or version history, it's pretty telling that the real version is something more like v0.1 ... maybe. So buyer beware that you might be getting something that is rough OR .. you just might be seeing something that was battle tested through two full major versions (odd that there wouldn't be any changelog, notes or testing though?)

Anyway, that's my system and one that seems fairly common among professional developers. As also pointed out in this thread, some folks might not be professional developers in RL which is just fine, they are welcome to use an unconventional form. That's part of the fun of Second Life: that it doesn't have to mimick real life. In my case, I use versioning for consistency and that it helps keep me organized. If I used different verisioning systems in RL and SL it would probably just confuse me, but I don't begrudge others who choose to use alternative systems they like.

There really is no wrong or right answer to this one.

I never saw a Windows 1.0

Rarely ever see software released at 1.0

1.0 is usually the first release candidate. But revisions are often made to the RC, creating more versions.

To be honest, it's very silly to attribute meaning to a version number. They are entirely up to the developer and are there to make it easier for the dev to distinguish the different versions they are working on.

And bsides, what does it matter? If V2 is the first one you purchase, then it's 1.0 to you. Why does it matter that there was a previous version if V2 is the current standard?

Don't panic.