Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
On 27-Aug-1998, Steve Lamb <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 1998 14:09:56 +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.
> I know I said the previous message would be my last post but I started
> going back and hit this one. This is exactly my point. *TEACHING* them is a
> better answer than *FOOLING* them. So why not *TEACH* them that 2.0.1 is
> just a small revision to the 2.0 release instead of *FOOLING* them?
Sure. We'll just spend all Debian's donation money on a big worldwide
advertising campaign for that one. We'll put developers in every
school, send missionaries to far off places, and teach them THE ONE TRUE
REVISION NUMBERING SCHEME AS REVEALED TO MANKIND BY STEVE LAMB!
Obviously we'll lose a few CD vendors in the process, but it's a small
price to pay for teaching people around the world the TRUTH.
Or I guess we could save the money, keep working on Debian, and use
the "r" scheme, which people already have the right idea about, and
conveys the truth perfectly well. Of course, we'd be FOOLING them
into ummm... believing what they already believe.
I'm easy either way.
But I can tell ya, Steve, I'm thinking Television here.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Tyson Dowd <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://tyse.net