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

Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 19:32:50 +1000, Tyson Dowd wrote:

>Your attitude sounds completely suited to a USENET debate.  

    Hey, if it fits, it fits.

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

    Or smarten up and start ordering the correct amount.

>We would like CD vendors to carry Debian.

    So you're then willing to change how you mark revisions each time the
ignorant masses figure out how to read your last piece of cryptic code?

>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.

    And it doesn't solve a thing because it isn't a numbering issue, it is a
vendor/public issue.

>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. 

    The reverse is true.  If you know what you want any version will do
because, chances are, you've got enough of a clue to grab the updates off the
'net.  If you don't know, chances are you're a newless cluebie who doesn't
know how to grab things off the net and, therefore, needs the latest

>>  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".

    Them buying too much of *ANY* stock is their problem.  They should order
less.  You're translating that, incorrectly, to "order none."

             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!

Reply to: