Re: branding debian releases
Hi All,
> The idea of renaming the releases is coming up not because of marketing,
> or attracting people. It is coming up because the current naming scheme
Hmm. You are right about that. However, I always like to make an analisys
on the 'bigger picture' before I start digging :). I think it is important
to keep in the back of your mind: "who are our users? what do they want?".
After alle, people make software for users (and for themselves off course
:)).
> is causing misunderstanding among people who are trying Debian out. You
> can argue that Debian is intended for sysadmins or experienced users (I
> don't think Pim is arguing that, actually, but I expect that there are
> those who would), but that's irrelevant.
Indeed. I was not aware there were so many miscommunications going on.
This happens when you work in a certain field for too long: you cannot
imagine people not understanding wat stable/testing/unstable means :).
> Hm. Too long for my taste. People aren't going to bother typing
> something that long in IRC. I'd say we want pithy but clear. How about:
>
> stable ---> lowrisk
> testing --> current
> unstable -> earlyaccess
Hmmm. If I read more down your post I come to another scheme which is a
good combination of what I was trying to say and what your point is:
stable --> server
testing --> desktop
unstable --> unstable / early / testing (!) / newstuff / fire / reddeb :)
What about this one? :).
'earlyaccess' is a bit too long too...
I came up with the above inspired by this part of your reply:
> consider how the releases are actually used. The stable distribution is
> most suitable for a) installation, and b) stable, high-security,
> low-risk servers. The testing distribution is used for desktop machines
> because it has current software, but is unlikely to break randomly (yes,
> Just in case I didn't make it clear earlier, I consider this a
> usability/documentation issue, not a marketing issue. The intended
> result of any name change is a reduction in (repetitive) questions to
> the mailing lists and IRC channels.
Correct, but.. it is also a marketing issue! People trying out unstable
who get dissapointments by broken packages are probably going away from
Debian. Marketing is all about expectations. What do people expect and
what do they get?
If we continue on the server / desktop / edgy route, the Debian Project
might consider a different releasing schedule as well...
server (stable) --> same as now. not often released. done when it is done.
once a year or so
desktop (testing) --> bring out 'releases', probably quarterly, with the
newest stuff, but properly tested. Properly enough for a desktop. The
change here is that you are going to announce 'official desktop
releases'... So you probably need some code-freezing etc too here, just
like we are doing now for stable. Big difference is focus on usability,
less on absolute stability like we do for Stable. Probably involves some
release management to be put in place for testing, but not as severe as
for stable.
edgy (unstable) --> just like it is now.
Good idea or absolute rubbish?
Pim
Reply to: