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

Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

On Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 05:42:49PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:

>     Same here.  The point I am making is that if someone *DOES* read they
> will see there *IS* a difference between 2.0 and
> 2.0.1/2.0r1/2.0a/2.0andstilllovingit.  Anyone who DOES read will chose the
> one that is the latter of the two.
>     It was said near the beginning of this thread that the 2.0r1 notation was
> being considered for "marketing" reasons to downplay the notions that people
> have about the importance between "2.0.0" and "2.0.1".  Maybe I am
> subscribing a higher level of intelligence to people who actually read.  For
> those who don't read it doesn't much matter *WHAT* you call it.

	Ok, so they read, and they see a difference. However, the difference
is so small, that only those who demand the "bleeding edge newest" will care.
Furthermore, it is most likely only those people who will care enough to
know that a new MINOR revision has been released. Anyone who gets a 2.0 CD
as opposed to a 2.0 r1 or 2.0.1 CD gets a working version of Debian. If the
changes are only security fixes, and the user doesn't care about security,
then what is the problem? If the user DOES care about security, they're
likely to know about the revision anyway, and they will ask specifically for
the latest revision. I don't see a problem here.

>     No, I never said that at all.  I am pointing out that 2.0.1 and 2.0r1 are
> ONE AND THE SAME and that there is *NO* basis of s/\./r/ other than to
> deceive people.  "No, it really isn't a change, we just, uh, had a bad batch
> of CDs, or something."
>     Why do you think that I keep pointing out that the third number in x.y.z
> means REVISION in the dot notation?

	You have just very plainly stated that the two are one in the same,
yet you continue to insist that one is deceitful. If the two are the same,
then either BOTH are deceitful, or NEITHER is deceitful.  As I pointed out
above, I don't see any deception involved in either naming method. 2.0.1
does look more important than 2.0 r1 to me. However these are very minor
fixes, and therefore, not that important to the average user. The change is
to help eliminate confusion, not to deceive.

Nathan E. Sandver KC7SQK
Everyone has a right to be stupid.
Some just abuse the privilege.

Reply to: