Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
On 25-Aug-1998, Steve Lamb <email@example.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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://tyse.net