[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

On 25-Aug-1998, Steve Lamb <morpheus@calweb.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 23:35:38 -0500 (CDT), Nathan E Norman wrote:
> >Have you read the freakin archives?  I'd guess not.
>     No, and I'm not going to.  I stated up top:  Why rehash it?  Because it

Your attitude sounds completely suited to a USENET debate.  

> is wrong.  I stated why I felt it was wrong.  I'll continue to back it up as
> needed.  For example, in every other business if a vendor over orders
> something it is their problem, but in this one it is our problem.  No, wrong.

CD vendors will stop carrying Debian rather than making a loss on it.

We would like CD vendors to carry Debian.

Therefore it is our problem.

They have already brought this up, and we have already reached a
compromise that doesn't hurt them greatly, and doesn't hurt us either.

If you know what you want, you just have to look at the r revision.
If you don't know, then chances are *any* revision will be fine. 

>  In every business vendors have to deal with stale stock, this one is no
> different.  Changing a . to a r will not make a difference in the long run
> other than to perpetuate a bad version scheme in place of a good one.

CD vendors shunning Debian CDs as a difficult product to make a profit on
is not what I would call "not making a difference in the long run".

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.     - Benjamin Franklin

Tyson Dowd   <tyson@tyse.net>   http://tyse.net

Reply to: