Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
This really is getting ridiculous.
The issue here as was pointed out, is that the Debian community desires
a "wide" distribution of Debian Linux. SPL does not "press" nor market
CDs and thus is required to rely upon commercial Silver CD vendors for
that production and distribution.
Like most engineered products, Silver CD cost is strongly related to
production volume. Vendors that do not make money on a particular CD
will generally discontinue that CD. Some vendors will retain an
unprofitable CD for "marketing reasons"--completeness. However, even
then the "interest" in that CD will be a marketing hype sort of thing
and not be particularly directed toward having a high quality CD.
Now some relevant "truths" about this whole issue...
No matter how current an CD that you might buy from a Silver CD vendor,
there will probably be updates in the archives that are not on the CD.
Hell, this is almost the case for a Gold CD!
Updating a Debian Release is a rather painless activity. Updating to
a NEW release has not been quite so straight forward but then that is
NOT what we are talking about here.
When a consumer buys a Debian CD the Version is very important for
ANY user. The revision OTOH is not so universally important. It is
vitally important however that whatever CD is supplied be a high
quality CD that will install a stable system with all of the "tools"
working correctly and that end is best served by not needlessly
"obsoleting" the vendor's stock every week or so.
As Hammish (for one) mentioned, part of the idea is that when Joe or
Jane User learns that there _might_ be r2, r3, etc. revisions
available that they will also learn that having the /base/ revision
is the thing that really matters.
The "security fix/serious bug fix" problems are NOT valid arguments.
These issues come up at anytime including minutes after completing
a new CD ROM image.
Other thoughts...
Do you know that when you buy a automobile made in Jan/Feb that
said automobile is typically quite a different _revision_ for the
"same" automobile that was manufactured six months earlier?
Are you aware that most consumer electronics equipment will undergo
major design changes without so much as a suggestion that there is
any change whatsoever unless a planned marketing campaign happens
to coincide with the changes?
Many (most?) people want the "latest and greatest" for any product
that they might buy. We (at least in the U.S.) are "pounded" by
advertising hype designed to foster the belief that if you don't buy
the absolutely latest release of any product that you are then
somehow buying obsolete junk. Of course the same advertisers use
various techniques to try to hide the fact that their own product
was just "obsoleted" (using the same standards) by a competing
product.
I think that we might need to remind ourselves that we are here
engaged in an activity that runs quite counter to the "standard"
practices of the "commercial world". Like Linux itself, the Debian
community, including involved users, are a part of a process that
according to "traditional Harvard MBA expertise" can not function.
Linux and Debian have "broken" virtually all of the "rules" about
how human activity functions. So let us not assume that we are
making a mistake by trying NOT to get caught up in the "latest and
greatest" craze.
On Thu, Aug 27, 1998 at 02:09:56PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 08:46:25AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > What happens when joe blow realizes that s/\./r/ and he gets the same
> > thing? Do you change numbering again?
> >
> > It comes down to hiding and being deceitful without solving anything
> > because every few years you end up "revising" how you "represent" a
> > "revision."
> >
> > When they learn, what do you do then?
>
> Teach them why it is so.
>
>
> Hamish
--
best,
-bill
bleach@BellSouth.net
b.leach@usa.net LinuxPC@Hotmail.com
from a 1996 Micro$loth ad campaign:
"The less you know about computers the more you want Micro$oft!"
See! They do get some things right!
Reply to: