Re: Where is Debian going?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 09:29:22PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> That doesn't work, though, because sid is NOT debian 4.x. 4.x is a
> stable release (which hasn't occured yet).
Almost right, except sid's more likely to get numbered 3.1 when it forks
to testing. Where did you get the idea that even major revisions are
somehow considered stable while others aren't? We're not the kernel
cabal, we don't have bizarre numbering schemes.
> 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.
I couldn't help but to think back to the original episode of Invader
Zim, where one of the tallest says, "It's not stupid, it's advanced!" I
agree with what you're saying, though.
> 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.
And at the present rate at which new versions are released, I wouldn't
expect to see Debian 4.0 to hit stable until late 2005 at the absolute
soonest. I base this assuming that Debian 3.0/woody gets released on 16
Aug 2002, which would put 3 revisions in exactly 9 years since IAM wrote
"Debian will contain the most up-to-date of everything" in his initial
announcement (message-ID: <CBusDD.MIK@unix.portal.com> for those
interested in a bit of Debian pre-history).
Heh, woody won't ship with a 2.4 kernel by default, so I'm assuming
we'll be bitching that Debian 4 is shipping with "an ancient 2.4 kernel"
by default. Anybody willing to bet against that?
> (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)
In which I normally respond with a similar "Uuuh, newest is 2.4.18 or
2.5.whatever-it-is-this-minute, depending on which you keep track of;
we're not expecting to see 7.2 until sometime around 2017, given it's
taken us roughly a decade to get out to 2.5."
> | Maybe what I'm reaching for is that Debian needs "marketing names",
>
> That sounds good.
NAK. If this were the case, Progeny would have succeeded. Or Stormix.
Or Corel. Or any other distro that happened during "let's take the best
distro, slap our own label on it, and ride the success" phase that a lot
of software companies did to look like they were branching out.
Otherwise, that statement was of the painful variety that I haven't
heard since I worked in a tech support call center.
> 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
Well, Microsoft's revenue model runs well against version numbering in
that if they advertised the real version number instead of thier
marketroid names, they'd have a much harder time selling thier shit.
WinME = Windows 5.0
Win 2000 = Windows NT 5
Win XP = Windows NT 5.1
Apparently, deliberately confusing version naming/numbering isn't the
only part of thier scheme. Went to go hit Windows Update on my mom's
WinME machine, only to get a page saying, "Thanks for your interest in
Windows Update, but you must upgrade to Windows 2000 or Windows XP to
take advantage of this feature." Oh, goodee. No more security updates
even to those who want them for a good portion of the Windows user
base...
- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9LP0eNtWkM9Ny9xURAqx5AJ9Cv+RpQUO1G+vUWHBAhk6XwnhN+QCZAYUr
cCBPfkdqD9Pg9jbxQHHYEyA=
=WPl3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: