On 12/03/2015, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday 11 March 2015 16:34:15 David Wright wrote:
Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.reisz@gmail.com):
On Wednesday 11 March 2015 15:46:55 David Wright wrote:
Quoting Bret Busby (bret.busby@gmail.com):
I have now found that, against my wishes, the Linux installations
were done as "legacy BIOS" installations, instead of UEFI/GPT
installations, so I now have a system that (after repairing the
nasty
PC-BSD installation damage) kind of works, but, the UEFI/GPT part
of
the system, is not seen by the Linux part of the system.
How did you express your wishes, and how did Debian contradict them?
It would help to file a bug report if there's a genuine problem,
especially at this time when the installer is having its problems
ironed out before its release.
Debian *7*, David. Wheezy. It was released some time ago!!
Touché. That just goes to show how much I prefer codenames to
release numbers!
I couldn't agree more. If all of Debian is to be known by numbers as some
are
suggesting I shall be in a constant muddle. :-(
Lisi
No, whilst for some of us find the numbers more meaningful and easier
to understand, than version names, the discussion in the other thread,
was, from my understanding, redefining the state names, rather than
the version names.
So, you would still have your
weezy
woozy
wussy
wassat,
etc
so that some of us would be confused by the version name use, rather
than simpler to understand, version numbers, and the issue in the
other thread, was instead to do with the state names, eg
destructive
maybe possibly fixable
possibly fixable
hopefully being fixed
being fixed
mostly fixed
kind of fixed
more or less fixed
supposedly fixed
fixed
has been fixed
had been fixed
has been
been
been and gone
gone
long gone
gone and forgotten
forgotten
deleted from memory