> I agree that there are many problems in trying to be too precise.
> However, the current spec on the swiki claims we should be returning
> something like 'win 95' or 'win NT' rather than just 'NT' 
> etc.

Where does it claim this? All I find is a "..." at
http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/314 ;-)

> That part would be trivial to 'fix' if indeed we conclude to obey the 
> swiki spec.

In the spirit of Squeak claiming that the best spec is the running system I
would conclude that the Swiki-spec should be fixed. No Windows VM that I
have ever released has reported "win 95" or "win NT" - they have always
responded saying "95" and "NT" and I don't have an inclination to change it
because the "swiki spec" disagrees ;-)

> Note that that documentation says specific OS type, not os sub-type. I
> have no problem at all with changing that just so long as we agree.

Well, the idea was to be able to say a _little_ more than just "this is some
Unix-like platform" or "this is a Windows PC" or "this is some kind of Mac
OS". I don't care much whether you regard this as "OS sub type" or as "os
version" or whatever. I think we shouldn't get locked up too much by
defining this as a "spec" in that strict sense. Like I was saying it's hard
to be very specific.

> I think we have three options so far:-
> a) ignore this and leave it as is
> b) change Mac & win code to return 'Mac OS 8.60' and 'windows 95' -
> obeying the swiki page
> c) change Acorn to return '4.15' instead of 'RiscOS 4.15' and change
> the swiki page.
> 
> Votes? Pronouncements ex cathedra?

Clearly my preferred choice is:

d) Change the swiki page to _document_ the actual behavior and leave
everything as is

Cheers,
  - Andreas