cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee) (02/05/91)
From what I have been reading, the successor to Minix 1.5.10 is 1.6.10 (and now 1.6.11). What ever happened to 1.6.x where x = 1 to 9? Did I miss something? Conway Yee, N2JWQ yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu (preferred) 231 S. Melville St. cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above) Philadelphia, Pa 19139 yee@bnlx26.nsls.bnl.gov (rarely checked) (215) 386-1312
john@minster.york.ac.uk (02/06/91)
In <1991Feb4.202456.1271@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, Conway Yee writes: > From what I have been reading, the successor to Minix 1.5.10 is 1.6.10 > (and now 1.6.11). Whatever happened to 1.6.x where x is 1 to 9? Did > I miss something? Donald Knuth's version numbering scheme for TeX and Metafont arranges that the numbers of successive releases of TeX approach pi more and more closely (3., 3.1, 3.14 ...) and the numbers of Metafont approach e more and more closely (2., 2.7, 2.71, 2.718 ...). May I suggest that Andy T. is taking Minix towards the Golden ratio (1.61803389 ...)? :-) (Yes, I have heard about 2.0. Perhaps the iterative method he is using is unstable, and is diverging rather than converging. :-)) --------------------------------------------------------------------- John A. Murdie Q: Why is the Universe here? Dept. of Comp. Sci. A: Where else would it be? University of York "The Songs of Distant Earth" ukc!minster!john Arthur C. Clarke