Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this
To make a too long thread even longer:
On Aug 19, Dave Cinege wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote:
> >
> >> So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 .
> >
> >Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know
> >that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and
> >I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a
> >longer explanation.
>
> Phooey! I like the naming scheme, and the system for updates. When I am using something
> Debian I want to know if it is 1.3.0 or 1.3.1, not 1.3 Rev-Guesswhatchangeswe'vemadewiththisrun.
> (debian_version should also reflect this)
Debian Version are only the first two numbers in fact: cat
/etc/debian_version
1.3
> Be a man among men! Trend set! A third rev number is the *RIGHT* way to do things.
> It is a linux-centric way to do things. Isn't the linux ethic about engineers making the product
> THEY want? (Not some marketing suit!) People use linux because of *the product* not because of
> a psycedelic world peace mind screw tv commercial. (Bring any companies to mind?)
> Debian is also being accepted because of the product....alot of people have never even used CD's.
> Those of us that have probably started out with a CD-R with 'deb' scribbled across the front in
> black marker.
CD vendors are troubled if people insist on 1.3.2, if it's there, and they
have only 1.3.1. Don't give names to the vendors: the people are also stupid
sometimes. They don't realize that 1.3.1 is nearly as good as 1.3.2 - only a
few minor bug fixes. Perhaps for things they never use. (this applies to old
naming convention).
Debian needs a bit marketing, only a little bit. Please. There are people
out of the u.s., that have trouble getting the software for cheap. Telephone
bills in Germany for example are high, and vendors are expensive. With a bit
more marketing, there will be more competition, and the prices can fall.
Please accept that a system can be high-quality, freaky, cool and accepted,
used by people with black markers on that is scribbled 'CD-R' with a deb,
and being on the market at the same time. Debian is such a product.
The new naming scheme is just fine. We can be proud of it, that we have such
a quality product, that we only need a slight revision, no whole new version.
This does not mean, that we try to hide problems (see social contract), we
do not behave like Windoze, that is only released every two years, because
"there are no updates, because there are no errors".
Debian is currently 1.3.1, and there will perhaps be no 1.3.2 for a long
time. Or can you think of a change so major like XFree 3.3?
> My vote is to keep it as it is and be proud of it. Screw the cd makers if they don't like it. What they
> really want is to be able to hide the subversions from people. If they want to do it, fine, just don't
> ask us to change our entire functional naming system.
Just my opinion,
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."
Marcus Brinkmann
Marcus.Brinkmann@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/
--
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: