Re: [offtopic] Earth calling Steve... (was: Re: Naming of new 2.0 release )
On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 23:22:21 +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
>I get the impression that you have missed the point completely somewhere
>along the line.
No, trying to get others to see the point they are missing.
>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.
It isn't? Then why the change as a concession to vendors who are stuck
because they overordered stock? The point would be, then, that they could
continue to sell the new stock as the latest. The reason for that is because
some users *MAY* perceive 2.0.1 as a significant enough change to not get 2.0
where they would perceive 2.0r1 as nothing of consiquence. They both mean
the same thing. 2.0.1 is Major version 2, Minor version 0, >REVISION< 1.
What does the "r" in the 2.0r1 notation stand for??????? >REVISION<
Well, if it doesn't mean anything different, and it is only there because
of what the vendors perceive the users will react to, what are we doing then?
Trying to confuse the matter.
Now, take it further, follow me here and try not to dismiss me out of
hand like everyone else. What happens when we've done that for years and
years and it has become the standard? Now every joe schmoe sees it and the
perception is that 3.0r1 is a significant enough change to not get 2.0 but,
say, 3.0.1 may be perceived as nothing of consiquence?
See the problem?
Fighting what the public perceives, changing what they perceive will
always lead you RIGHT back to where you started from. So why change?
>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.
That is exactly what 2.0.1 does! By changing it you change nothing in
the meaning. And when they get used to seeing x.yrz instead of x.y.z you
have to change it *AGAIN* to keep that perception alive.
>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.
Yeah, and? Anyone who takes the time to read "2.0" versus "2.0.1" is
going to see "2.0r1" and react almost the same. So you still have a putrid
color, now it is a sickly purple instead of green. Big whoop, the same thing
happens.
>2.0 CDs do not become suddenly ``rancid'' the moment 2.0r1 is released.
Says who?
>The r1 on Debian 2.0 is like the sell by date on a milk carton. If you worry
As is the .1. Same difference, so why confuse the matter, why break from
standards?
--
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: