Re: [offtopic] Earth calling Steve... (was: Re: Naming of new 2.0 release )
Hi,
>>"Steve" == Steve Lamb <morpheus@calweb.com> writes:
Steve> Neither, I never have and most likely never will have a Debian CD.
Which may explain your indifference to the fact that some
users have a need for silver CD's, and Debian is commited to
them as well.
Steve> No, I do not. 2.0.1 places no more emphasis on it than 2.0r1.
Steve> The difference is the latter was decided upon for marketing
Steve> reasons and breaks away from the standard numbering scheme
Steve> that has been in place for years.
As I said before. Technically indistinguishable. Breaks away
from one non-universal convention to another.
Steve> No, I am trying to point out that you cannot FIGHT the
Steve> perceived difference. I have asked, REPEATEDLY, what will
Steve> happen when the average joe places as much percieved weight in
Steve> the difference between 2.0r1 and 2.0 as the vendors say there
Steve> is between 2.0.1 and 2.0. You know it will happen, I know it
Steve> will happen. At that time, according to the logic you're
Steve> subscribing to, you'll change the numbering scheme again.
Steve> Changing things for no reason other than perception is meant
Steve> to fool the person into the "Correct" perception. Operative
Steve> word: fool. To fool someone into something is to be
Steve> deceitful.
*Sigh*. Again, we are not trying to decieve people into any
difference between 2.0r1 and 2.0.1: there is none. However, there is
a difference between 2,0 and both of the above.
We are essentially setting up a scheme where only major.minor
upgeades get a CD; the revisions do not. No deception involved. As
far as I can saee, only one person has reported to the list about
getting decieved or confused.
Steve> I am *STILL* waiting for an answer to my *VERY* simple
Steve> question. What will you do when joe average considers the
Steve> difference between 2.0r1 and 2.0 as the same that you say
Steve> there is now between 2.0.1 and 2.0.
Nothing. Becasue we have never tried to say there is no
difference between 2.0 and 2.0 r1. There is one. And I think most
people recognize that fact, despite your characterization of the
average user as totally moronic.
Steve> The problem, however, is that you're blindly going into a
Steve> different solution that breaks the standard and leads you
Steve> right back to the same problem a year or two down the line.
Steve> This is evident with the OSR1, OSR2, OSR2a, OSR2b scheme of
Steve> Microsoft.
What standard? Surely you mean one of many conventions?
Steve> Of course not, I mentioned it first to show that this
Steve> slight-of-hand tactic has been tried and has already failed
Steve> because perception always catches up. Always. So trying to
Steve> address it is an exercise in futility.
You are still not getting the point. The point is that we say
there shall be debian CD's for every release. In other words, there
shall be official CD's for every minor version change. There shall be
no CD's for revisions, at least, not officially.
That is what the numbering system is saying.
We need the CD's. We need an interval between CD's. We shall
need periodic upgrades for security. We have the Debian release CD,
we may then produce service pack CD's (to borrow nomenclature) after
enouygh revisions have been released to justify the service pack CD.
manoj
--
The three questions of greatest concern are -- 1. Is it attractive?
Is it amusing? 3. Does it know its place? Fran Lebowitz,
"Metropolitan Life"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: