On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 09:58:02PM -0400, Thatcher Ulrich wrote:
| On Jul 10, 2002 at 06:49 -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
| > On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 05:51:20PM -0400, Thatcher Ulrich wrote:
| > | MHO newbie opinion: emphasize version numbers (2.x, 3.x, 4.x) and
| >
| > That sounds fine for a "you can only get 'stable'" release method
| > (like every commercial software house runs it), however what version
| > is sid/unstable? What about testing?
|
| This is what I mean:
|
| potato == 2.x
| woody == 3.x
| sid == 4.x
That doesn't work, though, because sid is NOT debian 4.x. 4.x is a
stable release (which hasn't occured yet).
| > How hard is it really to learn that
| > "unstable" means latest-and-greatest-but-who-knows-if-it-breaks-your-system
| > "testing" means tested-a-bit-and-should-work-but-YMMV
| > "stable" means tested-a-lot-and-is-really-stable
|
| Pretty easy;
There really isn't any hazing required for joining the debian club
:-).
| newbies, who are by definition more familiar with other OS's.
IMO debian should not take some steps backwards just to be "familiar
with other OS's". Debian should be as advanced as it can be.
| It's the very first stumbling block after deciding to try Debian, and
| I think it's unnecessarily harmful.
Do you think that the naming system needs better documentation?
You're welcome to contribute some!
| I've personally figured it out by now. All I'm saying is that in the
| critical early moments of introducing myself to Debian, my pea-brain
| would have had a much easier time with { 2.x, 3.x, 4.x } instead of {
| potato, woody, sid }.
2.2 is potato. Any time you mention 2.2, everyone knows what you
mean. If you asked about debian 4, no one would know what you are
talking about because 2.2 is the latest release. (kind of like when
people say "I have a problem with linux 7.2 ...", when you know Linus
is currently working on 2.5; 7.2 doesn't exist yet)
The reason woody and sid don't have numbers is because they haven't
been released. You're just lucky that you get to walk into our
kitchen and sample the cookie dough before it is baked :-).
| > | The Toy Story code names are cute but totally confusing; I say ditch 'em.
| >
| > Everyone has names -- even RH and Mandrake (Seawolf, Enigma, Cooker).
| > There's nothing wrong with the names, really.
|
| Maybe what I'm reaching for is that Debian needs "marketing names",
That sounds good.
| which really ought to be numbers, for minimum confusion. Red Hat has
| their 6.0, 6.1, 7.0; Windows has their 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP; Mac has
| their 9.1, X, 10.2. All the Red Hat distros I used before starting w/
| Debian had cute South Park names, but as a user I didn't have to
| remember which was which.
There's a BIG difference here. All those releases you cite are
*stable*, *static* (well, except that MS doesn't understand numbering)
releases. That equates to the following, in debian
1.3 bo
2.0 hamm
2.1 slink
2.2 potato
Those were *stable*, *static* releases, and as such they have numbers.
You can forget the names if you want, those are the numbers.
Obviously the highest number there (potato) is the _latest_ stable
release. That's why it is also called "stable".
woody/testing and sid/unstable don't have any counterparts in the OSes
you cited as examples. (I'm referring to the stage of development,
not the actual characteristics -- Windows certainly qualifies for the
characteristic "really unstable" :-))
-D
--
If you hold to [Jesus'] teaching, you are really [Jesus'] disciples.
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
John 8:31-32
http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/
Attachment:
pgp51Rx5FQF_I.pgp
Description: PGP signature