No Leopard until October

[fryke]

What is the issue X is Greek for 10 so sound good to me

Roman. Not Greek. But I have to say, I've _always_ hated how they initially called it "Eks" (long before release) and then moved to call it "ten". We've had this discussion over and over. It would have made _so_ much more sense to call it "Mac OS X (eks) 1.0", like they did with the first version of Mac OS X Server. By now, we'd be talking about Leopard: Mac OS X 5.0. Even the paying for the upgrades would have been easier to defend. But having the version number "10" twice in a product's name right next to each other, once in Roman, once in decimal numbers, is plain stupid in my view.

 

[nixgeek]

Roman. Not Greek. But I have to say, I've _always_ hated how they initially called it "Eks" (long before release) and then moved to call it "ten". We've had this discussion over and over. It would have made _so_ much more sense to call it "Mac OS X (eks) 1.0", like they did with the first version of Mac OS X Server. By now, we'd be talking about Leopard: Mac OS X 5.0. Even the paying for the upgrades would have been easier to defend. But having the version number "10" twice in a product's name right next to each other, once in Roman, once in decimal numbers, is plain stupid in my view.

I have to agree with you there. To me, calling it "Mac Oh Es Eks" made more sense especially considering the UNIX underbelly that made up Mac OS X. And like you mention, it would be easier to justify the move from Mac OS "eks" 4.x to mac OS "eks" 5.0. Just adding the "10" in front of it immediately makes it look like a minor revision to everyone that's accustomed to the first number signifying a major revision. I thought it was rather tacky to called it "Mac Oh-Es Ten". Seemed more like a marketing ploy than anything common-sensical.

 

[nixgeek]

They are just implying the X as in UniX and LinuX but just pronouncing as Ten to avoid UNIX license thing.

I always thought they couldn't call it "UNIX" because the Open Group (the group that certifies an OS as being "UNIX") didn't approve it. I thought that it had to adhere to a certain structure before it could be approved to be called "UNIX". I'm sure they can afford the licensing costs especially with how well they're doing now, but who's to say really.

I just found this link on Wikipedia that says that Apple will be submitting Mac OS X Leopard and Leopard Server to be certified under the Single UNIX Specification so that it's fully UNIX compliant. Maybe then it will officially be called a "UNIX" operating system. Maybe this is the reason for the delay as well?