Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
I am strongly against making too many releases. If it is for
developers' convenient, we can name it as "Build-19980826" or
something like this. As a potential silver CD vendor, I feel
it is simply not marketable if you release too many intermediate
versions. Even we raise price and break even for the first 100
CDs we sell, how do we dump the rest 4,900 CDs?
We sell Caldera CDs but we were burnt when we have many copies of
1.0 while within four months they released 1.1 and they refused to
take them back. Now we no longer keep any inventory for them. I
used UnixWare as example to educate them: UW only releases ~grandady~
version and all sub-releases will be upgraded by patches. In this way,
you get a 2.1 CD and you can upgrade it to 2.1.2 or 2.1.3 without
patch CDs or download from their FTP site.
Debian/Linux is famous for its online updating. If we can upgrade
the system without special treatment like "autoup.sh," I recommend
we should just call it Debian/Linux V2 as long as no fresh
reinstallation is required. However if there is any significant change
made, which worths celebrations while leaving vendor's stock CDs
behind, I have no objection on that.
Just my $0.02.
--ward
Reply to: