Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
Steve Lamb <morpheus@calweb.com> wrote:
> How so? As I've repeatedly stated, if someone asks for the latest
> version and gets a previous one is that not deception?
It's the same version of debian.
> > If we were discussing cars, this would be analogous to a slight
> > change in trim -- not a completely new model.
>
> A piece of trim that could fly up and spear the user in the eyes
> (in case of a small, one package security change).
>From the way you've worded this, I don't think you have a clue
what you're talking about.
Anyways, what about next week's security fix? Or the one that
comes in next month?
In my opinion, we should encourage everyone who is concerned about
security to regularly check stable-updates. We shouldn't even pretend
that installing from a cdrom without checking stable-updates is going
to be secure.
> > Anyways, if you want to do some "moralistic flaming", why aren't you
> > crying that we shouldn't be releasing hamm at all? After all, the
> > official cdrom set includes some clear violations of copyright law.
>
> > Where's your priorities?
>
> My priorities are where everyone's priorities in this project are, where
> they understand problems. That is the whole point of having 2-300 people
> going over that. In the KDE issue I have no clue why it is illegal for KDE
> (GPL'd) to link to QT when Trolltech's FAQ says it is ok.
Yeah, that means you weren't paying attention.
For what it's worth, KDE has taken *other* *people's* GPL'd code,
renamed it, and linked it with Qt. Without getting approval from
the original authors. And not just for one case, but for a number
of cases.
If you care, I've filed bug reports against all the kde packages
where I noticed this happening. That doesn't mean I found all
of them [and I have reason to believe that I didn't].
> It would be like asking someone who is submitting cosmetic bug
> fixes to a program that has huge gaping security holes where their
> priorities are.
Too bad you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You're great
at rhetoric.
--
Raul
Reply to: