1 hour ago, KirbyFC wrote
*snip*Version numbers are completely arbitrary. You can give your product any version number you want. You don't necessarily have to start at 1 (the first version of Windows NT was 3.1) and you can skip numbers if you want (Windows recently went from 6.something to 10).
That said, there has always been a sort of "gentleman's agreement" in the software world. Version 4.0 represents significant changes over version 3.0, while version 4.1 only represents a minor change from version 4.0, and version 4.1.1 represents an even smaller change.
This pattern of version numbering is not only logical and sensible, it communicates important information to users, especially businesses who may be affected by big changes in a piece of software.
What I find interesting is that a few years ago, around the time of Linux 2.6.something, there was a post on a mailing list that Linux Torvalds frequents and he said very emphatically that there would NEVER EVER be a Linux 3.0. I don't remember the reason, but I thought it it was a very weird thing to say.
But now it seems that he has jumped on the Google/Mozilla bandwagon of "Let's increment the major version number even though we haven't made any major changes that would warrant such a change."