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

Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

On 26-Aug-1998, Steve Lamb <morpheus@calweb.com> wrote:
> 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.

This is not usenet.  Unsubstantiated facts are not enough here.

> >CD vendors will stop carrying Debian rather than making a loss on it.
>     Or smarten up and start ordering the correct amount.

You obviously know nothing about the economics of CD manufacture.
Go and learn about it.

Or are you going to say "No" again?

> >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?

We are willing to work with the CD vendors and not dilberately screw
up their business for a small revision to a stable release.

If in future this means using a different scheme, then perhaps it's
appropriate.  Personally I think the rX revision scheme works fine,
and conveys to users the correct idea -- these are small revisions,
there is no need to get the absolute latest revision.

The only way this could possibly become a problem is if we started
advertising saying "make sure you get the latest rX of Debian or
else you might as well throw the CD out".

But advertising like that would by lying to users, because the CD
is fine.  It doesn't become junk just because there is a newer
version out that fixes some bugs.  (If it did, every version would
be junk, because you can be sure there are bugs in it that will be
fixed one day).

> >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
> revision.

Of course it would be nice if we could magically create
latest revision CDs in the hands of everyone who wants them
at low prices.  That would be ideal.

But I'm talking about a *compromise* that allows us to update CD
revisions without running vendors into the ground, and get more
CDs out there.  It's a pretty small compromise.

You aren't talking about compromises at all.  You're
talking about fairyland, where Debian CDs are made by the big
Debian CD Factory In The Sky and every vendor orders precisely how many they
need, and it's the same cost for each CD no matter how many you order,
and you don't have to worry about keeping stock because the Debian elves
deliver them through the chimney every evening.  And if you don't make
any profit, that's ok, because the Debian elves bring a big roast turkey
around to feed your family. 

> >>  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."

If you knew the first thing about CD manufacture on items like
Linux CDs, you would know that the translation is correct.

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: