Fw: Re: RFC: renaming "Distribution"
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:32:34 -0500
"James A. Treacy" <treacy@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 07:53:25PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It is apparent that the term "distribution" is overloaded with meanings.
> > We use it for the /distrib/ web page, and mention it in several other
> > places, meaning at least two things. This is confusing for the newbies and
> > needlessly requires thinking from those who aren't newbies ;)
> >
> > So, I think the /distrib/ page should be renamed. Not the URL (that's too
> > much work :), but the title and the links, including the navbar image.
> >
> We should start by listing the terms we use and how we will use them.
>
> Instead of giving terms and what I think they should mean, I will list
> the items we need words for and people can have fun putting words to
> them. :)
>
> - 2.2r3, 2.2r4, etc
I believe these are called point releases. Perhaps the 'r' standing for 'release' is misleading; perhpas it should be a 'p' or '.'?
> - the versions for each of the architectures (i386, arm, powerpc, etc)
I think these can safely be called architectures. However, what happens with different kernels?
perhaps we should specify: architecture/kernel?
> - stable, unstable, sid, testing (do these need a different term than
> 2.2r3, 2.2r4, etc? At first glance you might think so, but do you
> really want people saying '2.2r3 release of debian released'?)
Personally I think these should be called releases, and instead of saying 'Debian xxx release released' we should say 'Debian xxx moved to stable'. Is there policy on this?
> - distributing debian (the current title of /distrib/ is
> 'Distribution'. Ugh)
hmmm...*searches through thesaurus*: acquisition; source; supply; suppliers?
> (Anything else we need a term for?)
>
> One thing that would help is having a debian dictionary page. Key words
> could have links to the appropriate entry in the dictionary the first
> time they are used on pages for general consumption. This would have the
> added benefit of forcing the translators to think carefully of how they
> translate some key words and to then translate them consistently.
Who _should_ be naming things? Do we need a MS like marketing division? One name for the techies and another for the website? or just let the people who deal with the public decide?
Matthew Bell
Reply to: