Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
On Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 02:21:37PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Steve Lamb <morpheus@calweb.com> wrote:
> > In short, deception.
> No.
How so? As I've repeatedly stated, if someone asks for the latest
version and gets a previous one is that not deception?
> If we were discussing cars, this would be analogous to a slight
> change in trim -- not a completely new model.
A piece of trim that could fly up and spear the user in the eyes (in
case of a small, one package security change).
> Anyways, if you want to do some "moralistic flaming", why aren't you
> crying that we shouldn't be releasing hamm at all? After all, the
> official cdrom set includes some clear violations of copyright law.
> Where's your priorities?
My priorities are where everyone's priorities in this project are, where
they understand problems. That is the whole point of having 2-300 people
going over that. In the KDE issue I have no clue why it is illegal for KDE
(GPL'd) to link to QT when Trolltech's FAQ says it is ok. To me the Debian
Social Contract contradicts itself (No restrictions on code yet GPL code is
restricted to be released under the GPL). Since I don't clearly grasp those
or they aren't worth my time fighting over (I don't like or use KDE, so to
hell with it) I choose to focus my energies elsewhere.
It would be like asking someone who is submitting cosmetic bug fixes to
a program that has huge gaping security holes where their priorities are.
They are where they should be, if all they understand is cosmetics and that
is what they are fixing at least the are fixing something and all the power
to them.
--
Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my
http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus | employer's. They hired me for my
CC: from news not wanted or appreciated| skills and labor, not my opinions!
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reply to: