Sigil-0.9.10 Released

[DiapDealer]

Besides, the big, fat "0." in front of those digits should tell you it's not a decimal representation of a normal number. On what planet is 0.9.10 an actual number that can be used in mathematics?

The periods are merely separators, not decimal points.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

I just went to log in to Sigil and got the news that 9.10 is out. I currently have 9.8. Is 9.10 for beta testers only? (Although not a total washout, I'm decidedly non-techie.) Maybe I should just upgrade to 9.9? And last thing would be how to get an upgrade for Xubuntu 16.04LTS on a 64 bit computer? Thanks.

The latest version of Sigil available from the 16.04 repos is Sigil v0.9.5, I believe. So if you have Sigil v0.9.8, you either built Sigil yourself from scratch, or used my standalone Linux installer, or you added a third-party ppa to your repository list and installed Sigil from that. Do any of those sound familiar?

And might I suggest that when you DO get Sigil updated this time, you document the process somewhere so we don't have guess which it was every few Sigil releases?

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

9.10 is the most current released version - not beta.

Thanks Dion

[exaltedwombat]

Originally Posted by st_albert

Well, the question is becoming moot, what with the plans for accommodating both in one way or another, but since you asked, for me, it was a reason to not upgrade in the first place. I use the preview in lieu of book view, and do a lot of switching back and forth by clicking on a line in one or the other. OTOH I hardly ever need to open hyperlinks that way.

I'll be content to wait and see what develops.

Albert

I guess I just assumed an update would be all improvements with no quid pro quo, and neglected to read the small print. Never mind. Two conversions effeciently completed after rolling back to 0.9.9. I await developments!

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Notjohn

It's a fine and robust release, with the welcome addition of clickable urls in the Preview panel. (For that advance, you do lose the ability to sync Code View by clicking on a word in Preview panel, but I gather that's only a temporary loss.)

Can't help you with Xubuntu.

I don't like the release number. To me, 9.10 = 9.1 and is therefore streets behind 9.9.

Thanks Notjohn. I kind of like that syncing Code View by clicking a word in the Preview panel feature. Maybe I'll hang with 9.8 a while.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The latest version of Sigil available from the 16.04 repos is Sigil v0.9.5, I believe. So if you have Sigil v0.9.8, you either built Sigil yourself from scratch, or used my standalone Linux installer, or you added a third-party ppa to your repository list and installed Sigil from that. Do any of those sound familiar?

And might I suggest that when you DO get Sigil updated this time, you document the process somewhere so we don't have guess which it was every few Sigil releases?

Yes--LOL--I built Sigil from scratch. (I needed a challenge.) But seriously, I remember a long time ago getting an updated version from your installer (it was easy) but I'm not sure it was 9.8. In fact, I doubt it. Can I have gotten 9.8 from Synaptic Package Manager?

Okay, will document this time. (If I update. I'm not so sure now I'm going to. Notjohn was talking about the bug in Preview panel (clicking on a word there no longer syncs the Code view). 9.8 has been working marvelously well for me. Maybe I stay there for a while?) What do I gain or lose (roughly) by going to 9.9? to 9.10? I do pretty ordinary stuff, just text (a novel), TOC and a few images.

Oh, and a friend said I should stick with whatever Xubuntu gives me when Xubuntu upgrades, which I think will be in 2020. He said stick with what's in the "official repos." (I don't know if Sigil gets automatically upgraded when Xubuntu does. I did look in Synaptic Package Manager and this is what I found. (attachment))

Thanks! Sorry about all the parentheses. Kind of went wonko with them.

[DiapDealer]

Yes, it definitely looks like you've installed via synaptic. I was unaware they were that recent with Sigil.

And by all means ... if you're comfortable with the version you have (and you're not the adventuresome Linux aficionado) then stick with Synaptic. Your friend is right. The official repos won't steer you wrong. And if you're lucky enough to have a distro that keeps Sigil fairly up to date, there's no reason for you to jump through a lot of hoops update.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yes, it definitely looks like you've installed via synaptic. I was unaware they were that recent with Sigil.

And by all means ... if you're comfortable with the version you have (and you're not the adventuresome Linux aficionado) then stick with Synaptic. Your friend is right. The official repos won't steer you wrong. And if you're lucky enough to have a distro that keeps Sigil fairly up to date, there's no reason for you to jump through a lot of hoops update.

Okay, Diap. Will stick with 9.8. Appreciate it.

[JustinThought]

Originally Posted by Notjohn

I don't like the release number. To me, 9.10 = 9.1 and is therefore streets behind 9.9.

Originally Posted by Turtle91

lolz...you must be a mathematician type rather than a software type. The next release will likely be .9.11, then .9.12 which makes perfect sense from a versioning notation perspective.

Yabbut...to me it would have made sense (and possibly avoided some confusion from us "mathematician types") to have named it 0.9.91. Not only that, but it would have sorted better in my folder where I have the compleat history of Sigil since I found it. I had to go back and renumber 0.9.9 and back to read 0.9.09 etc.

Oh, life has sooooo many travails.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JustinThought

Yabbut...to me it would have made sense (and possibly avoided some confusion from us "mathematician types") to have named it 0.9.91. Not only that, but it would have sorted better in my folder where I have the compleat history of Sigil since I found it. I had to go back and renumber 0.9.9 and back to read 0.9.09 etc.

You wanted us to skip 81 releases just to make your files sort properly?



P.S. I still honestly don't see why even a "mathematician type" would automatically think "decimal/base10" when seeing a "number" with two periods in it. When has anyone ever been asked to add multiply 0.9.8 by 1.9.9?

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

When has anyone ever been asked to add multiply 0.9.8 by 1.9.9?

Baby-boomer Brits might remember the old UK currency, not only did it have two separators (spaces, slashes, or less often periods), the units weren't decimal and it had fractions too!

So - £2.11.8¼ x 3 = £7.14.4¾ (I think)

BR

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

Baby-boomer Brits might remember the old UK currency, not only did it have two separators (spaces, slashes, or less often periods), the units weren't decimal and it had fractions too!

So - £2.11.8¼ x 3 = £7.14.4¾ (I think)

BR

In that case, they won't be stumped at all when Sigil v7 pounds 14 shillings 4 pence and 3 farthings comes out.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

Baby-boomer Brits might remember the old UK currency, not only did it have two separators (spaces, slashes, or less often periods), the units weren't decimal and it had fractions too!

So - £2.11.8¼ x 3 = £7.14.4¾ (I think)

Also written as £2 11s. 8¼d.

£sd = pound + sterling + pence

(I was just talking about this with an acquaintance when digitizing the latest round of books.)

Seems like most currencies were decimalized during the 1800s-1970s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimalization

with the British £sd converted to decimalization in 1971:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_Day

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

Seems like most currencies were decimalized during the 1800s-1970s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimalization

That claims Russia was the first country to convert its money to decimal units, but interestingly there's no mention of China.

China's money has had decimal units for thousands years - 1 yuan = 10 jiao = 10 fen

When the UK converted, my mother rescued an old mechanical desktop £sd comptometer from the scrap heap. After she died we donated it to a now defunct local museum, I was told it subsequently went to Bletchley Park.

BR

[Notjohn]

My favorite Brit unit of currency (there was no note, but men's clothing and I believe real estate prices were often measured in it) was the guinea. In 1955 it was almost exactly $3 USD.

The ha'penny was still a common coin at that time, but the farthing (1/4 penny) had been withdrawn from circulation. Someone once showed me a farthing, the only one I ever saw. The same was true of a five-pound note, which was a handkerchief-sized note that as I recall was white): I only ever saw the one.

I rather liked British currency, though the coins did wear out my pockets and I had to have them replaced. The replacement pockets felt more like canvas than cloth.

When I left England in June to hitchhike through the Continent, there were strict export restrictions. I believe the limit was £10 though it may have been £20. Even at my then standard of living, that wouldn't have last, so I got 80 one-pound notes, put them in a little sack, and tied the sack at the bottom of my sleeping bag. The dollar value was $240. That lasted me three months before I had to beat it back to London again, where I had left a suitcase and some traveler's checks in Left Luggage.

It was a great time to be an American in Europe.