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

Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 14:47:28 -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:

>Let me add a factoid here.  I installed 2.0 from an official CD.
>Yesterday, I used apt-get to upgrade my installed packages (540MB of stuff)
>to stable-updates.  It downloaded 6MB (including a new version of XFree
>that I didn't really need).  I don't consider that upgrade a major new
>release, and I'm still content installing Debian on another PC using the
>same 2.0 CD.

    Let me add a factoid here.  I don't own a Debian CD at all and most
likely never will.  I installed from Hamm(Frozen) and now follow Hamm and

    You know it is that easy to upgrade, I know it is that easy to upgrade,
the general public does not. 

    The who point of "2.0r1" versus "2.0.1" is to fool the general public
into thinking that 2.0 is still viable.  Guess what, they are!  As I said, I
know that and you know that.  That is not, nor ever was, in my mind, called
into question.

    The issue is the priniple of the matter.  If a user is requesting the
latest release/revision/whatever 2.0 != 2.0.1.  2.0 != 2.0r1, either. 
Changing a . to a r does not change the nature of the beast.  It is
euphamstic, at best.  

    That is what is called into question.  The idiotic changing of the
version numbering scheme to deceive.

             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: