Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 14:47:59 -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>Steve Lamb <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> But if you document it (2.0.1 v. 2.0r1, v. "hamm/slink/stinky socks")
>> then it defeats the purpose of the basis of this whole thread, hiding what
>> is on the CD so the vendors can sell more copies.
>No, it does not.
Yes it does.
>Of course, you seem to think that the right choice is one that pretends
>that people shouldn't be using dpkg on an ongoing basis if they're
>concerned about security.
No. I charge you to back that statement up with facts. Please quote
where I said that or shut the hell up. I really detest being misquoted. I'm
sure you do as well.
>You also seem to think that the right choice is one where you shouldn't
>have to bother actually reading anything, let alone anything pertinent
>to this subject.
Same here. The point I am making is that if someone *DOES* read they
will see there *IS* a difference between 2.0 and
2.0.1/2.0r1/2.0a/2.0andstilllovingit. Anyone who DOES read will chose the
one that is the latter of the two.
It was said near the beginning of this thread that the 2.0r1 notation was
being considered for "marketing" reasons to downplay the notions that people
have about the importance between "2.0.0" and "2.0.1". Maybe I am
subscribing a higher level of intelligence to people who actually read. For
those who don't read it doesn't much matter *WHAT* you call it.
>On this basis, you want us to make a change to our naming convention that
>(a) adds no information, and (b) will make some people unhappy.
No. The change is to (a) stop being deceitful (see above paragraph) and
(b) remains true to established standards that nearly every other piece of
software conforms to.
>In fact, I think that you're trying to be somewhat deceitful -- by
>implying that hamm [2.0 r2] is in some fashion significant different from
>hamm [2.0]. You want people who have already bought a copy of hamm to
>think they need to shell out more money for a second copy?
No, I never said that at all. I am pointing out that 2.0.1 and 2.0r1 are
ONE AND THE SAME and that there is *NO* basis of s/\./r/ other than to
deceive people. "No, it really isn't a change, we just, uh, had a bad batch
of CDs, or something."
Why do you think that I keep pointing out that the third number in x.y.z
means REVISION in the dot notation?
>So, let me ask you again: what are you trying to accomplish? So far
>you've only admitted to usenet style flaming.
I didn't even do that. I don't see flames in here. All I see is false
attributions from you. I've stated CLEARLY what I am trying to accomplish.
Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my
http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus | employer's. They hired me for my
ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions!