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

[offtopic] Earth calling Steve... (was: Re: Naming of new 2.0 release )

>     How so?  As I've repeatedly stated,

You're not kidding :-(

I get the impression that you have missed the point completely somewhere along 
the line.

You seem to think that we are using the r1 thing to confuse users into
thinking that 2.0 and 2.0 r1 are the same, and that when they work it out 
we will keep moving the target by changing to v1 etc. etc.

This is not the case.

The whole point of the r1 thing is to give the separate revisions of 2.0 the 
emphasis they deserve (i.e. almost none).  The differences are not really
worth getting excited about, so we don't want to deceive people into
thinking that they are.

> if someone asks for the latest version and gets a previous one is that
> not deception?

It's the same ``deception'' that occurs when you go shopping for milk, and you 
pick up a carton at the front of the shelf that is a day older than some
of the other cartons.

Since most normal people don't give a damn, there is no problem.

They want fresh milk, and they get fresh milk.

Admittedly, they could have had even fresher milk if they cared enough to 
look at the sell-by date, but since they realise that they wouldn't be able
to tell the difference, they don't bother.

You seem to want us to deceive our users by inappropriately over emphasising
a minor revision, in a way that would convince many that the old batch was
seriously flawed in some way.
To return to the milk metaphor, your suggestion is equivalent to passing a
law that all milk cartons should be made of a material that turns a putrid
shade of green when the next batch of milk is available.

So what would the result of doing this be:

 o  The cartons of milk that had turned green would be perceived by the
    public to be rancid, while in fact their contents were still
    perfectly wholesome.

 o  Milk vendors would have to dump old stock as soon as the new stock became 
    available.  This would put the price of milk up, and would be a shameful 
    waste of milk.

 o  People who were quite happy with any milk, as long as it was fresh, would
    now always get the freshest milk.
    Unfortunately it would cost more, and being an elastic market some people 
    would therefore stop buying milk.
    Some vendors may be forced to abandon milk as no longer profitable, 
    leaving some people with nobody from whom to buy milk.

 o  There would be a much greater need for vendors and wholesalers to
    coordinate the arrival of new stock.
    Two batches arriving too close together means a lot of spilled milk ;-)

 o  The fussy milk shoppers, who care about absolute freshness would be saved 
    the effort of checking sell by dates.  This is the sole benefit, as far 
    as I can see, and it doesn't seem to justify the damage.

Debian CDs are almost exactly analogous to this.

2.0 CDs do not become suddenly ``rancid'' the moment 2.0r1 is released.

Most people will be equally happy with either batch of because they both work.

As in the milk example, the general population of Debian CD purchasers are
much better off with having some of their number getting the slightly out of
date product during the transition between batches, than finding that their
insistence on old stock being discarded has resulted in nobody being willing
to sell them a CD any more.

The r1 on Debian 2.0 is like the sell by date on a milk carton.  If you worry 
about such things, you check it before you buy.  If you trust your vendor 
enough not to poison you, then you don't bother, and you're willing to take 
something which is not the absolute freshest, because what you get is fresh 
enough, at a reasonable price.

Cheers, Phil.

Reply to: