Re: naming convention question
> I wrote:
> > But why is it good to choose names that don't reflect *anything*?
>
> Scott K. Ellis writes:
> > They do, they are the codename for the version,...
>
> What secrets are being protected by this code?
None. Codes don't exist just to make things secret. Code names can
and do exist for other reasons as well. Codes serve to prevent
problems that occur when the "proper" name is used instead. Commercial
codes aren't secret, but cut down on the time it takes to transmit
information. Similarly, code names for software in development help
keep different versions and products separate in the developers minds.
In this case, code names are used to prevent problems which we've run
into in the past, with people grabbing the wrong distributions, with
thrashing mirrors, and so on.
>
> > ...similar to the codenames that Microsoft...
>
> Oh. Well, if *Microsoft* does it, it *must* be a good idea.
>
> Obscure code names are ok in closed development where the only people who
> need to know the names deal with them all day every day and so will learn
> them quickly. In open development, they are confusing.
To a large degree, there are only 2 or 4 names most Debian users need
be aware of: stable and unstable, and possibly contrib and non-free.
Two of these are symbolic links to the code-named versions. These -do
not change- name, although they change in contents.
Unstable was deliberately named that to -discourage- people from using
it. When J. Random Linuxer comes to the Debian FTP site, we want him
to look at stable or possibly Debian-1.3.1. If they are scared that
"unstable" will crash their system (and at times, it will crash your
system, if you aren't careful), and avoid it, then Debian won't end up
looking bad for having systems that will crash your system.
Yes, we want people to use unstable (be it buzz, rex, bo, hamm, or
whatever the next code name is), because that way we can catch bugs
before they end up in a released version. But we also want those that
do to know what they are getting into -- that there are risks in using
potentially buggy software. By choosing names that don't imply
versioning or quality of release, that are intentionally meaningless,
we effectively require people to go to an effort to use it, and that
keeps people who aren't paying attention safe.
I am not a Debian developer -- I have not submitted any packaged for
the Debian system -- but I do know how fast info like the new codenames
becomes known. Some names, like hamm, were the topic of discussion
when they were chosen (as mentioned elsewhere, "woody" was thought of,
but rejected).
To a certain degree, Debian is a more open development system than the
Linux Kernel. No single person is responsible for what goes into the
system -- that is divided up amongst nearly 200 developers -- whereas
with the kernel, Linus himself says yea or nay to every patch
submitted. Out works-in-progress are open to all to look at or use,
for good or worse.
>
> > The sequence (buzz, rex, bo, hamm) follows names of characters in the
> > Pixar animated movie, "Toy Story".
>
> Cartoon character names are somehow supposed to be mnemonics for Debian
> releases?
No, they are supposed to be names of Debian releases. Names don't
necessarily mean anything about the object named. That you are named
"John" tells me very little about you.
So far, the only name I've seen you suggest was "unreleased-1.3" and
"unreleased-2.0" for what is currently called "bo" and "hamm". Can you
come up with better names than bo and hamm that meets all of the
following criteria:
1) the name cannot be changed once decided, since this will cause
unwanted thrashing of mirror sites. this means:
1a) It can't refer to release status, since a change in release
status
would cause a change in the appropriate name.
1b) It can't refer to a date, since dates tend to be too variable in
Debian anyway.
2) the name must not encourage people to use it directly, since we have
run into problems in the past of people publishing releases that
weren't ready for release, because the name made people think it
was ready (the Debian-1.0 fiasco). This means that the name
most definitely can't refer to
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: