In <[🔎] pan.2011.05.25.15.12.10@gmail.com>, Camaleón wrote: >On Wed, 25 May 2011 09:21:24 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> In <[🔎] pan.2011.05.25.14.04.35@gmail.com>, Camaleón wrote: >>>On Wed, 25 May 2011 08:50:56 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >>>> "Obsolete" isn't the right term. >>> >>>How would you call the Firefox 3.0.x branch? Legacy? >>> >> I'd call 3.0.x deprecated but, I'd call 3.5.x stable. :P > >Grr!! :-) Sorry, I am being a bit pedantic, but I don't consider much in Debian stable as "obsolete". Check the popcon scores for real usage numbers. I consider very little in Debian testing / Sid as "stable", and I think all good software deserves some time as stable-but-not-obsolete. :) >But "deprecated" and "obsolete" are pretty the same. Should you have said >"unmaintained"... Deprecated comes before obsolete. Ideally, obsolete comes before unmaintained, but sometimes that's not true. 1. Using the object is recommended against by the maintainer(s); at this point the object is deprecated. Presumably, the maintainers should indicate an alternative. 2. Use of the object ceases or is reduced enough to label the object as "disused"; at this point the object is obsolete. This is a rather subjective occurrence. 3. Maintenance of the object ceases; at this point the object is unmaintained. (I have a number of persons in my area that still want to use Linux on HPPA; I still consider it obsolete.) In the land of free software, it is possible for anyone with the time and desire to become the maintainer of some piece of software, so deprecated and unmaintained depends on which maintainer you choose to believe. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.