Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this
On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote: So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a longer explanation. Phooey! I like the naming scheme, and the system for updates. When I am using something Debian I want to know if it is 1.3.0 or 1.3.1, not 1.3 Rev-Guesswhatchangeswe'vemadewiththisrun. (debian_version should also reflect this) Be a man among men! Trend set! A third rev number is the *RIGHT* way to do things. It is a linux-centric way to do things. Isn't the linux ethic about engineers making the product THEY want? (Not some marketing suit!) People use linux because of *the product* not because of a psycedelic world peace mind screw tv commercial. (Bring any companies to mind?) Debian is also being accepted because of the productalot of people have never even used CD's. Those of us that have probably started out with a CD-R with 'deb' scribbled across the front in black marker. My vote is to keep it as it is and be proud of it. Screw the cd makers if they don't like it. What they really want is to be able to hide the subversions from people. If they want to do it, fine, just don't ask us to change our entire functional naming system. - http://www.psychosis.com/emc/ Elite MicroComputers 908-541-4214 http://www.psychosis.com/linux-router/ Linux Router Project -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this
On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Dave Cinege wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote: So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a longer explanation. Phooey! I like the naming scheme, and the system for updates. When I am using something Debian I want to know if it is 1.3.0 or 1.3.1, not 1.3 Rev-Guesswhatchangeswe'vemadewiththisrun. (debian_version should also reflect this) (The following are how I see this is. If I am incorrect, please correct me. :) New revisions are still distinguished. There is nothing hidden in anyway. For example, if there are some security fixes needed for a new release, it will be called Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1, Debian 1.3.1 Revision 2, and so forth. This is to indicate that the changes are small. (Usually just minor bug fixes, perhaps just a few megabytes which only takes a few minutes to half an hour for people to download from an FTP site.) The next major release will be Debian 2.0. If *small* revisions are necessary, they'll be called Debian 2.0 Revision 1, Debian 2.0 Revision 2, and so forth. When there are major changes for a major released, it will be called Debian 2.1 or something like that. I like this idea. It is a very good compromise, and indeed, nothing is hidden. You may think of Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1 as 1.3.1.1; Debian 2.0 Revision 1 as Debian 2.0.1. It is up to you. ^_^ -- Anthony Fok Tung-Ling[EMAIL PROTECTED] Civil Engineeringhttp://www.ualberta.ca/~foka/ University of Alberta, CanadaKeep smiling! *^_^* -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this
On Tue, 19 Aug 1997 17:47:12 -0600 (MDT), Anthony Fok wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Dave Cinege wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote: So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a longer explanation. Phooey! I like the naming scheme, and the system for updates. When I am using something Debian I want to know if it is 1.3.0 or 1.3.1, not 1.3 Rev-Guesswhatchangeswe'vemadewiththisrun. (debian_version should also reflect this) (The following are how I see this is. If I am incorrect, please correct me. :) New revisions are still distinguished. There is nothing hidden in anyway. For example, if there are some security fixes needed for a new release, it will be called Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1, Debian 1.3.1 Revision 2, and so forth. This is to indicate that the changes are small. (Usually just minor bug fixes, perhaps just a few megabytes which only takes a few minutes to half an hour for people to download from an FTP site.) Its monkey wrench time. When I query debian_version with my script what do I now look for? 1.3.1 is easy. Everything is delimited with a . just use cut. Will it now return 1.3.1r1 1.3 R1 or what? Does this look nice at boot up? Is this going to break any previous scripts? I like this idea. It is a very good compromise, and indeed, nothing is hidden. You may think of Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1 as 1.3.1.1; Debian 2.0 Revision 1 as Debian 2.0.1. It is up to you. ^_^ I don't. 1.3.1 Rev 1 looks plain dumb. It looks like something so screwed we've got subpatches on top of patches. - http://www.psychosis.com/emc/ Elite MicroComputers 908-541-4214 http://www.psychosis.com/linux-router/ Linux Router Project -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this
-- From: Dave Cinege [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this Date: Tuesday, August 19, 1997 8:20 PM On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote: So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this
The way I see it is this. On ftp.debian.org there is a directory called bo-updates in there are all of the updates, with the changes info, that have happened since the last major release. Ok, so here is my point, since any changes that are done are announced via the debian-changes list why do we even bother with revision numbers. It would seem easy enough to me that to make everyone happy we could put up a page that says Look here is what was changed, if you want it get it, if not bugger off then we could forget about all this revision worry and the retailers would be happy because they would have a product that was going to last a few months. As for the cd the version on the disk is 1.3 the X.X.1 and X.X.2 are for the disk number ( ie. Debian 1.3 disk 1 and Debian 1.3 disk 2) That is just my two cents. Syd http://syd.onsyd.com/ How do you know you're having fun if there's no one watching you have it. Douglas Adams finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key! -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this
To make a too long thread even longer: On Aug 19, Dave Cinege wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote: So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a longer explanation. Phooey! I like the naming scheme, and the system for updates. When I am using something Debian I want to know if it is 1.3.0 or 1.3.1, not 1.3 Rev-Guesswhatchangeswe'vemadewiththisrun. (debian_version should also reflect this) Debian Version are only the first two numbers in fact: cat /etc/debian_version 1.3 Be a man among men! Trend set! A third rev number is the *RIGHT* way to do things. It is a linux-centric way to do things. Isn't the linux ethic about engineers making the product THEY want? (Not some marketing suit!) People use linux because of *the product* not because of a psycedelic world peace mind screw tv commercial. (Bring any companies to mind?) Debian is also being accepted because of the productalot of people have never even used CD's. Those of us that have probably started out with a CD-R with 'deb' scribbled across the front in black marker. CD vendors are troubled if people insist on 1.3.2, if it's there, and they have only 1.3.1. Don't give names to the vendors: the people are also stupid sometimes. They don't realize that 1.3.1 is nearly as good as 1.3.2 - only a few minor bug fixes. Perhaps for things they never use. (this applies to old naming convention). Debian needs a bit marketing, only a little bit. Please. There are people out of the u.s., that have trouble getting the software for cheap. Telephone bills in Germany for example are high, and vendors are expensive. With a bit more marketing, there will be more competition, and the prices can fall. Please accept that a system can be high-quality, freaky, cool and accepted, used by people with black markers on that is scribbled 'CD-R' with a deb, and being on the market at the same time. Debian is such a product. The new naming scheme is just fine. We can be proud of it, that we have such a quality product, that we only need a slight revision, no whole new version. This does not mean, that we try to hide problems (see social contract), we do not behave like Windoze, that is only released every two years, because there are no updates, because there are no errors. Debian is currently 1.3.1, and there will perhaps be no 1.3.2 for a long time. Or can you think of a change so major like XFree 3.3? My vote is to keep it as it is and be proud of it. Screw the cd makers if they don't like it. What they really want is to be able to hide the subversions from people. If they want to do it, fine, just don't ask us to change our entire functional naming system. Just my opinion, Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god. Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
