Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[David Wright]

On Mon 03 Jul 2023 at 12:14:11 (+0100), debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> Nicolas George  wrote:
> > Roger Price (12023-07-03):
> > > Exactly my point that inanimate objects of which there are many
> > > examples are best known by numbers.  Numbers so well known that
> > > songs are written about the number: historic US 66 [1], and in
> > > France the historic N7 [2], a vacation highway.  
> > 
> > And you know which one is the N6 or the N8? Or the US route 65 or 67?
> 
> No but I live in the UK and I know the A1, A2, A4, A5, A6 and many
> others, plus the M1, M4, M5, M6.
> 
> > The objects that are by their number are the exception, not the rule.
> 
> There are roads whose 'numbers' I don't know but I don't know the
> 'names' of any of them except for rare exceptions such as 'the Great
> North Road'. But road numbers are mostly just labels, although there is
> a kind of system for allocating them.

Yes, I think they decided to number all the roads about the time that
WW1 broke out, so the system was implemented in the 1920s. Most of the
A/B roads don't have a corresponding name, though there are exceptions
like the A4202, which is much better known as Park Lane. Even the ones
that did have a name in the past have been so realigned that the
(stable) old names are now paired with segments bearing a variety of
new numbers, eg, Watling St is now the B5404 through Fazeley.

Where these classified roads enter towns, locals will typically use
the more memorable road and street names rather than the numbers,
which often get renumbered when bypasses are built, or road
improvements lead to wholesale rerouting. In any case, a single
numbered road is likely to have at least two street names in a town
of any size, one at each end. I can't think of an instance where the
road number is used as part of a street address.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[David Wright]

On Mon 03 Jul 2023 at 10:42:15 (+0200), Roger Price wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2023, David Wright wrote:
> 
> > Perhaps more people remember the A5 is the Holyhead Road, rather than
> 
> Exactly my point that inanimate objects of which there are many examples
> are best known by numbers.  Numbers so well known that songs are written
> about the number: historic US 66 [1], and in France the historic N7 [2],
> a vacation highway.

You asked me to justify that names are more memorable than numbers,
(and Stefan had stated that numbers can be easier to remember than
names). So far, we've put our heads together and come up with three
possible counterexamples, so I don't see how you can say I've made
/your/ point.

As for examples, I already mentioned your login and computer names,
supplied by the OS in preference to your having to use numbers like
1000, 127.0.1.1 and so on. Are there people who don't bother to put
names of people and institutions in their mobile phones when they're
cslled?

You brought up ships; last month I would have wondered which ship was
alongside in Southampton if it had carried only its number, 9241061,
rather than its name, Queen Mary 2.

I think many Britons of my age would remember that Mallard holds the
world speed record for a steam locomotive. How many could give you its
number, 4468, or that of a previous holder, Flying Scotsman (4472)?
It's hardly surprising that railway companies gave their locomotives
memorable names for publicity purposes, rather than using their
numbers. They also named particular train services for the same
reason.

Why do Met Offices name storms, rather than using numerical
coordinates as they used to do in the past: so that the public will
recall them and take note when warnings are issued.

Why do people give nicknames to pieces of music, sometimes even
against the wishes of the composer: to make them easier to recall,
to buy them, to discuss them, to attract people to concerts, and
so on. Publishers and impresarios want to make money, and names sell.

I'll leave it there.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Joe]

On Tue, 04 Jul 2023 11:33:20 +0100
"mick.crane"  wrote:

> On 2023-07-03 23:34, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> > tomas wrote:
> >   
> >> Or is "metric" one of these things spared by the
> >> Brexit Bonfire?  
> > 
> > It depends which gear your camp is since the metric system is
> > partly implemented and partly co-exists  
> 
> British Standard Pipe still in use for plumbing and 1/4", 3/8" of 
> specification I forget for camera mounts.
> 

Either Whitworth or UNC will work. Only the thread angle is different,
by five degrees, so they are in practice interchangeable.

-- 
Joe

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Emanuel Berg]

jeremy ardley wrote:

> Or is "metric" one of these things spared by the
> Brexit Bonfire?

 It depends which gear your camp is since the metric
 system is partly implemented and partly co-exists
>>>
>>> British Standard Pipe still in use for plumbing and 1/4",
>>> 3/8" of specification I forget for camera mounts.
>>
>> Boxing gloves, drums ...
>
> The British o-ring standard BS was based on inch
> measurements. It was then adapted so all measurements are in
> mm to precision 0.1 mm
>
> This standard is now adopted in the US by the SAE.
>
> So if you buy an o-ring in the US you will get a metric
> precision ring certified by the SAE who derive it from the
> British BS measurement which itself is metric, which in turn
> is derived from nominal inch measurements e.g. 3/32"

Haha case closed :)

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[jeremy ardley]

On 4/7/23 19:22, Emanuel Berg wrote:

mick.crane wrote:


Or is "metric" one of these things spared by the
Brexit Bonfire?

It depends which gear your camp is since the metric system
is partly implemented and partly co-exists

British Standard Pipe still in use for plumbing and 1/4",
3/8" of specification I forget for camera mounts.

Boxing gloves, drums ...

The British o-ring standard BS was based on inch measurements. It was 
then adapted so all measurements are in mm to precision 0.1 mm


This standard is now adopted in the US by the SAE.

So if you buy an o-ring in the US you will get a metric precision ring 
certified by the SAE who derive it from the British BS measurement which 
itself is metric, which in turn is derived from nominal inch 
measurements e.g. 3/32"

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Emanuel Berg]

mick.crane wrote:

>>> Or is "metric" one of these things spared by the
>>> Brexit Bonfire?
>>
>> It depends which gear your camp is since the metric system
>> is partly implemented and partly co-exists
>
> British Standard Pipe still in use for plumbing and 1/4",
> 3/8" of specification I forget for camera mounts.

Boxing gloves, drums ...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[mick.crane]

On 2023-07-03 23:34, Emanuel Berg wrote:

tomas wrote:


Or is "metric" one of these things spared by the
Brexit Bonfire?


It depends which gear your camp is since the metric system is
partly implemented and partly co-exists


British Standard Pipe still in use for plumbing and 1/4", 3/8" of 
specification I forget for camera mounts.


mick

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Brad Rogers]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 23:34:50 +0200
Emanuel Berg  wrote:

Hello Emanuel,

>Maybe the UK roads also follow a system.

They certainly did.  The remnants can be seen still.  Maybe wikipedia
has an article about it - I've not checked.  A DDG (or other search
engine) lookup would find something.

-- 
 Regards  _   "Valid sig separator is {dash}{dash}{space}"
 / )  "The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent"
/ _)rad   "Is it only me that has a working delete key?"
Sign away your life
Tin Soldiers - Stiff Little Fingers


pgp4eZb5Y51qP.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Brad Rogers]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 23:33:23 +0200
Emanuel Berg  wrote:

Hello Emanuel,

>days, they want their product or project to come up first if
>anyone Googles them.


What comes up first is the company with biggest wallet.  Name, or
number, matters not one iota.


-- 
 Regards  _   "Valid sig separator is {dash}{dash}{space}"
 / )  "The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent"
/ _)rad   "Is it only me that has a working delete key?"
I am alone there's nobody there
I Look Alone - Buzzcocks


pgpV6C9IwVBuR.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Emanuel Berg]

tomas wrote:

> Or is "metric" one of these things spared by the
> Brexit Bonfire?

It depends which gear your camp is since the metric system is
partly implemented and partly co-exists (e.g. on product
labels) in the UK ... and the supposed all-Metric world.
Everything, of course, Made in China anyway ...

Here is an example of a product that have not 2 but 3 systems
(English, French and ISO). Maybe you are familiar with it,

  https://dataswamp.org/~incal/bike/TIRE

But it is still not comparable since those digits say what
size the tire is, it isn't the tire version. And as for names,
they don't have that problem since often it's just the
companies name. Sometimes tho, for flashier high-end tires,
they have names to describe the particular product, and they
want to make them unique for commercial reasons.

So there are no reasons for us to do that, the main thing is
so one can refer to them. If there is no reason to call it
something, numbers or codes that refer to the technology is
the best. E.g., what power tool is AG18BL ... it is an angle
grinder with an 18V battery.

But since computers systems are much more complicated that may
not be doable in a meaningful way to be used on the floor.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Emanuel Berg]

Brad Rogers wrote:

>> But M5 can be a bolt size and a lot of other things as well,
>
> Context! When the conversation is about roads in the UK, why
> would *anyone* think bolt size?

I agree, but that's why people have a hangup with names these
days, they want their product or project to come up first if
anyone Googles them.

However it is better to assume people will Google "M5 bolt"
when needed rather than assuming they will remember Holy Socks
nicknames for computer software technology not associated with
either footwear or religion ...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Emanuel Berg]

tomas wrote:

>>> But M5 can be a bolt size and a lot of other things as well,
>> 
>> Context! When the conversation is about roads in the UK,
>> why would *anyone* think bolt size?
>
> Especially metric ones =:-o

Maybe the UK roads also follow a system. They were the first
guys having one, after all ;)

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Emanuel Berg]

debian-user wrote:

 No but I live in the UK and I know the A1, A2, A4, A5, A6
 and many others, plus the M1, M4, M5, M6.
>> 
>> But M5 can be a bolt size and a lot of other things as
>> well, while creative names may stay "more" unique.
>
> Nonsense. Curt's reply (which you cut when wrongly
> attributing my text to him!) provides an excellent example
> of a memorable name 'Penny Lane' - which I for one know only
> as the name of a song and didn't even know which town the
> road was in (Abbey Road I do happen to know).

I'm saying, the cute or exotic names don't sound like
technology, that's why they don't stick. They have to be
exceptional for that, like the Kalashnikov that is arguably
more known than the AK-47 - which is also widely known BTW.

> All names need context and the M5 as a road is not likely to
> be mixed up with an M5 bolt or screw.

Indeed, maybe search engines using Ubuntu can mix them up but
it is unlikely on Debian, also they are shorter and have the
feel of technology and not cartoonish PR brains at work.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[tomas]

On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 05:53:10PM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 18:28:49 +0200
> Emanuel Berg  wrote:
> 
> Hello Emanuel,
> 
> >But M5 can be a bolt size and a lot of other things as well,
> 
> Context!  When the conversation is about roads in the UK, why would
> *anyone* think bolt size?

Especially metric ones =:-o

(Or is "metric" one of these things spared by the Brexit Bonfire?)

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Brad Rogers]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 18:28:49 +0200
Emanuel Berg  wrote:

Hello Emanuel,

>But M5 can be a bolt size and a lot of other things as well,

Context!  When the conversation is about roads in the UK, why would
*anyone* think bolt size?

-- 
 Regards  _   "Valid sig separator is {dash}{dash}{space}"
 / )  "The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent"
/ _)rad   "Is it only me that has a working delete key?"
Let them go, set them free, let them be who they wanna be
Lovers Of Outrage - Penetration


pgpnksqeMtOKZ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[mick.crane]

On 2023-07-01 15:15, David Wright wrote:


You don't have to memorize all of Debian's codenames in order, do you?
There are about three or four in current use at any one time. (And the
release numbers might be monotonic, but they're not sequential, so
memorizing them would be just as tricky.)


They could be codenames of things in alphabetical order.
mick

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[debian-user]

Emanuel Berg  wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> 
> >> No but I live in the UK and I know the A1, A2, A4, A5, A6
> >> and many others, plus the M1, M4, M5, M6.  
> 
> But M5 can be a bolt size and a lot of other things as well,
> while creative names may stay "more" unique.

Nonsense. Curt's reply (which you cut when wrongly attributing my text
to him!) provides an excellent example of a memorable name 'Penny Lane'
- which I for one know only as the name of a song and didn't even know
which town the road was in (Abbey Road I do happen to know). All names
need context and the M5 as a road is not likely to be mixed up with an
M5 bolt or screw.

I think the problem with Debian codenames is a poor choice of order for
choosing them. Three successive ones with the same initial letter
smacks of a deliberate attempt to confuse the 
by the cognoscenti. Some naming plan that stepped through the alphabet
would be far more useful and easier to understand IMHO.

> But on the other hand there are many Emmas and Camillas, and
> people tend to keep track of who is who anyway ...
> 
> Nah, creative, especially cute names are silly, this is an
> engineering and to some extent even scientific discipline
> after all. Bugs Bunny release names makes it silly compared to
> minor.major.patch or whatever other a-personal numbers game
> you'd like to play ...

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Emanuel Berg]

Curt wrote:

>> No but I live in the UK and I know the A1, A2, A4, A5, A6
>> and many others, plus the M1, M4, M5, M6.

But M5 can be a bolt size and a lot of other things as well,
while creative names may stay "more" unique.

But on the other hand there are many Emmas and Camillas, and
people tend to keep track of who is who anyway ...

Nah, creative, especially cute names are silly, this is an
engineering and to some extent even scientific discipline
after all. Bugs Bunny release names makes it silly compared to
minor.major.patch or whatever other a-personal numbers game
you'd like to play ...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Curt]

On 2023-07-03, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk  wrote:
> Nicolas George  wrote:
>> Roger Price (12023-07-03):
>> > Exactly my point that inanimate objects of which there are many
>> > examples are best known by numbers.  Numbers so well known that
>> > songs are written about the number: historic US 66 [1], and in
>> > France the historic N7 [2], a vacation highway.  
>> 
>> And you know which one is the N6 or the N8? Or the US route 65 or 67?
>
> No but I live in the UK and I know the A1, A2, A4, A5, A6 and many
> others, plus the M1, M4, M5, M6.
>
>> The objects that are by their number are the exception, not the rule.
>
> There are roads whose 'numbers' I don't know but I don't know the
> 'names' of any of them except for rare exceptions such as 'the Great
> North Road'. But road numbers are mostly just labels, although there is
> a kind of system for allocating them.
>

I only know Abbey Road and Penny Lane.

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[debian-user]

Nicolas George  wrote:
> Roger Price (12023-07-03):
> > Exactly my point that inanimate objects of which there are many
> > examples are best known by numbers.  Numbers so well known that
> > songs are written about the number: historic US 66 [1], and in
> > France the historic N7 [2], a vacation highway.  
> 
> And you know which one is the N6 or the N8? Or the US route 65 or 67?

No but I live in the UK and I know the A1, A2, A4, A5, A6 and many
others, plus the M1, M4, M5, M6.

> The objects that are by their number are the exception, not the rule.

There are roads whose 'numbers' I don't know but I don't know the
'names' of any of them except for rare exceptions such as 'the Great
North Road'. But road numbers are mostly just labels, although there is
a kind of system for allocating them.

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 4:42 AM Roger Price  wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2023, David Wright wrote:
>
> > Perhaps more people remember the A5 is the Holyhead Road, rather than
>
> Exactly my point that inanimate objects of which there are many examples are
> best known by numbers.  Numbers so well known that songs are written about the
> number: historic US 66 [1], and in France the historic N7 [2], a vacation
> highway.

I'm kind of surprised someone has not cited a paper from a UX study
rather than relying on anecdotes. An expert opinion will carry more
weight and settle the matter.

I think the folks with the domain knowledge hang out at ux.stackexchange.com.

Jeff

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Nicolas George]

Roger Price (12023-07-03):
> Exactly my point that inanimate objects of which there are many examples are
> best known by numbers.  Numbers so well known that songs are written about
> the number: historic US 66 [1], and in France the historic N7 [2], a
> vacation highway.

And you know which one is the N6 or the N8? Or the US route 65 or 67?

The objects that are by their number are the exception, not the rule.

-- 
  Nicolas George

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Roger Price]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023, David Wright wrote:


Perhaps more people remember the A5 is the Holyhead Road, rather than


Exactly my point that inanimate objects of which there are many examples are 
best known by numbers.  Numbers so well known that songs are written about the 
number: historic US 66 [1], and in France the historic N7 [2], a vacation 
highway.


Roger

[1] "Route 66" The Nat King Cole Trio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nuDE1SJlPo

[2] "Nationale 7" Charles Trenet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SnjC-RROG8

So far no sentimental song about Debian that I know of.

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[David Wright]

On Sun 02 Jul 2023 at 11:30:39 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
> David Wright wrote: 
> > On Sat 01 Jul 2023 at 11:34:53 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > David Wright wrote: 
> > > > On Mon 26 Jun 2023 at 17:22:04 (-0400), Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 4:45 PM Dan Ritter  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > riveravaldez wrote:
> > > > > > > It would be possible, as an alternative, to populate sources.list 
> > > > > > > with '2021',
> > > > > > > for instance, instead of 'bullseye', 'bookworm', etc.?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We could have something like, 'Debian 2023 - Bookworm', so, 
> > > > > > > preserving
> > > > > > > tradition, but allowing '2023' to be used as an alternative 
> > > > > > > replacement of
> > > > > > > the traditional name maybe?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just an idea, looking for a simple solution...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BTW, considering Debian doesn't have the marketing impositions of 
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > proprietary commercial product, I find 'Debian 2021', 'Debian 
> > > > > > > 2023', etc.,
> > > > > > > reasonably appealing...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This would also be useful in my efforts to explain to my boss
> > > > > > why we're upgrading the machines.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "It's 2023 and we're running Debian 2021. It's time to upgrade."
> > > > > 
> > > > > ++
> > > > 
> > > > I don't see how that works. What would your codename be, instead of
> > > > trixie? How do you know?
> > > 
> > > I wouldn't care, because "2023" would be a synonym for
> > > "bookworm" in all the appropriate files.
> > 
> > Now that bookworm has been released, it's straightforward to assign
> > to it a Release Number of 2023. But the OP was querying the invention
> > of the codename trixie. I'm asking what alternative would you choose?
> 
> Trixie is what we would use up until code freeze, at which point
> we would have the option of continuing to call it trixie, but it
> would gain the synonym 2023.

Suit yourself; the release names are not of any particular interest
to me per se. They might be important for marketing and advocacy,
but I'm not involved in that. All power to those who are: they
probably hold views on the best names to choose.

> > > > a project, and everyone knows what they're talking about. Unlike 
> > > > numbers,
> > > > names are memorable and unambiguous (when well-chosen).
> > > 
> > > buster, bullseye, bookworm. So we can't depend on them to be
> > > well-chosen.
> > 
> > What's not well-chosen about any one of those codenames? (I know some
> > people have difficulty distinguishing between words with the same
> > initial letter, even though their common meanings are completely
> > different.)
> 
> When I talk to my users and my boss, all of them have trouble
> remembering them and keeping the order straight.
> 
> And when I talk about releases older than oldoldstable, I have
> trouble too.

I don't know anything about your organisation. The environment
I worked in was not principally concerned with computing, and
I don't think my boss had any knowledge beyond the word "Linux",
(possibly). My users were immersed in my software, but didn't
concern themselves particularly with what OS was running it.

As a user myself (of the university computing service), we were
surveyed about application software that could/would/ought to
be made available, but not the timing of OS upgrades, which
required coordination across departments. When I served for a
while on the appropriate committee, I remember our views being
sought on which manufacturers would be asked to submit bids
for the replacement system. We didn't discuss OS versions from
five years ago, using either codenames or Sunday best names.

> > I don't think it's sensible to use bare year numbers for releases,
> > let alone for codenames for as yet unreleased versions, even where
> > the dates were thought to be predictable. Take a couple of recent
> > posts, transcribing them from codenames into year numbers:
> > 
> >   I'm not sure what you're reading into that. The 2021 manpage has a
> >   copyright date of 2006 (Red Hat). But if we look at service itself,
> >   which is a script, we can see that the ?earliest Debian version was
> >   written in 2004 by our very own John Hasler, for 2005 through 2009,
> >   by which time the version we have now, I think, joins it, and
> >   replaces it in 2011.
> > 
> > It's not immediately clear that 2006 and 2004 are literal dates,
> > whereas the other numbers were originally codenames.
> 
> I am amenable to "stable2023" or "debian2023" or any reasonable,
> unambiguous encoding standardization along those lines. 

That would seem more reasonable.

> > These numbers are all standing for codenames. However, the dates that
> > they now superficially resemble are misleading, because the ranking
> > decisions are likely to have been made up to two years or more earlier
> > than it would seem from the numbers.
> 
> They went into effect when each stable vers

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[David Wright]

On Sun 02 Jul 2023 at 12:08:27 (-0400), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> > Unlike numbers, names are memorable and unambiguous (when well-chosen).
> >> This claim is far from evident and needs justification.  The only
> [...]
> > Leaving aside that Titanic is the real name of the ship and not a
> > codename, the evidence is all around you.  Look no further than
> > your login name, or the name of your computer.  A huge slice of the
> > Internet's infrastructure, DNS, is concerned with allowing people
> > to converse with memorable names rather than anonymous numbers.
> 
> Anecdotal evidence cuts both ways: how many years have names rather
> than numbers?

One way of looking at this, for Anglophones:

Every year has a name: it looks like the number of the year when
written, but it's pronounced differently: for example, 1968,
pronounced "nineteen sixtyeight". Convention dictates that the year
is never written grouped, like 1,968, but is pronounced almost
universally grouped into (unspoken) hundreds. One wouldn't say
"one thousand and sixtyeight" (or "one thousand sixtyeight" in
American).

Exceptionally, the names of the years in the opening decade of this
century haven't yet settled. Perhaps they never will until people
alive at the time are all dead.

> Numbers can be easier to remember in some cases, and names in others.

Perhaps more people remember the A5 is the Holyhead Road, rather than
the name Watling Street, unless you live in Milton Keynes, where it's
also the V4. And MK is one place where you might think you remember
the road numbers better than their names, but really you're just
counting. There's a V9, which I must have driven on, if only to park
in Downs Barn and dodge the fees in Central MK, but I don't have a
clue what it's called, as most of it doesn't exist. That which does
lies between Marlborough St (V8) and Brickhill St (V10), both of
which I knew well, over two decades ago.

And now I'm rambling 'cause I'm stuck: I'm not sure why I'm the one
having to think up examples.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Emanuel Berg]

Stefan Monnier wrote:

>> Leaving aside that Titanic is the real name of the ship and
>> not a codename, the evidence is all around you. Look no
>> further than your login name, or the name of your computer.
>> A huge slice of the Internet's infrastructure, DNS, is
>> concerned with allowing people to converse with memorable
>> names rather than anonymous numbers.
>
> Anecdotal evidence cuts both ways: how many years have names
> rather than numbers?

There are pieces of military equipment that have a code
designation as well as a flashy name, and people still use the
code designation. There is no telling what will stick from one
case to the other, or what will be most popular by some
majority of guys using it. As long as there is a name or
designation people can refer to it which is the most
important part.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Stefan Monnier]

>> > Unlike numbers, names are memorable and unambiguous (when well-chosen).
>> This claim is far from evident and needs justification.  The only
[...]
> Leaving aside that Titanic is the real name of the ship and not a
> codename, the evidence is all around you.  Look no further than
> your login name, or the name of your computer.  A huge slice of the
> Internet's infrastructure, DNS, is concerned with allowing people
> to converse with memorable names rather than anonymous numbers.

Anecdotal evidence cuts both ways: how many years have names rather
than numbers?

Numbers can be easier to remember in some cases, and names in others.


Stefan

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Dan Ritter]

David Wright wrote: 
> On Sat 01 Jul 2023 at 11:34:53 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
> > David Wright wrote: 
> > > On Mon 26 Jun 2023 at 17:22:04 (-0400), Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 4:45 PM Dan Ritter  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > riveravaldez wrote:
> > > > > > It would be possible, as an alternative, to populate sources.list 
> > > > > > with '2021',
> > > > > > for instance, instead of 'bullseye', 'bookworm', etc.?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We could have something like, 'Debian 2023 - Bookworm', so, 
> > > > > > preserving
> > > > > > tradition, but allowing '2023' to be used as an alternative 
> > > > > > replacement of
> > > > > > the traditional name maybe?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just an idea, looking for a simple solution...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW, considering Debian doesn't have the marketing impositions of 
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > proprietary commercial product, I find 'Debian 2021', 'Debian 
> > > > > > 2023', etc.,
> > > > > > reasonably appealing...
> > > > >
> > > > > This would also be useful in my efforts to explain to my boss
> > > > > why we're upgrading the machines.
> > > > >
> > > > > "It's 2023 and we're running Debian 2021. It's time to upgrade."
> > > > 
> > > > ++
> > > 
> > > I don't see how that works. What would your codename be, instead of
> > > trixie? How do you know?
> > 
> > I wouldn't care, because "2023" would be a synonym for
> > "bookworm" in all the appropriate files.
> 
> Now that bookworm has been released, it's straightforward to assign
> to it a Release Number of 2023. But the OP was querying the invention
> of the codename trixie. I'm asking what alternative would you choose?

Trixie is what we would use up until code freeze, at which point
we would have the option of continuing to call it trixie, but it
would gain the synonym 2023.

> > > a project, and everyone knows what they're talking about. Unlike numbers,
> > > names are memorable and unambiguous (when well-chosen).
> > 
> > buster, bullseye, bookworm. So we can't depend on them to be
> > well-chosen.
> 
> What's not well-chosen about any one of those codenames? (I know some
> people have difficulty distinguishing between words with the same
> initial letter, even though their common meanings are completely
> different.)

When I talk to my users and my boss, all of them have trouble
remembering them and keeping the order straight.

And when I talk about releases older than oldoldstable, I have
trouble too.

> I don't think it's sensible to use bare year numbers for releases,
> let alone for codenames for as yet unreleased versions, even where
> the dates were thought to be predictable. Take a couple of recent
> posts, transcribing them from codenames into year numbers:
> 
>   I'm not sure what you're reading into that. The 2021 manpage has a
>   copyright date of 2006 (Red Hat). But if we look at service itself,
>   which is a script, we can see that the ?earliest Debian version was
>   written in 2004 by our very own John Hasler, for 2005 through 2009,
>   by which time the version we have now, I think, joins it, and
>   replaces it in 2011.
> 
> It's not immediately clear that 2006 and 2004 are literal dates,
> whereas the other numbers were originally codenames.

I am amenable to "stable2023" or "debian2023" or any reasonable,
unambiguous encoding standardization along those lines. 

> These numbers are all standing for codenames. However, the dates that
> they now superficially resemble are misleading, because the ranking
> decisions are likely to have been made up to two years or more earlier
> than it would seem from the numbers.

They went into effect when each stable version was released.  Decisions
are obviously made before they are implemented, and as I said, I'm not
calling for a replacement, I'm calling for a substitutable predictable
and postdictable alias implemented when the year of the stable release
becomes extremely likely.

The marginal case where unpredictable delays push a stable
release out to December, and then possibly into the next
calendar year, is not very concerning to me as long as there is
no more than one stable .0 release per calendar year.

-dsr-

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[David Wright]

On Sat 01 Jul 2023 at 11:34:53 (-0400), Dan Ritter wrote:
> David Wright wrote: 
> > On Mon 26 Jun 2023 at 17:22:04 (-0400), Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 4:45 PM Dan Ritter  wrote:
> > > > riveravaldez wrote:
> > > > > It would be possible, as an alternative, to populate sources.list 
> > > > > with '2021',
> > > > > for instance, instead of 'bullseye', 'bookworm', etc.?
> > > > >
> > > > > We could have something like, 'Debian 2023 - Bookworm', so, preserving
> > > > > tradition, but allowing '2023' to be used as an alternative 
> > > > > replacement of
> > > > > the traditional name maybe?
> > > > >
> > > > > Just an idea, looking for a simple solution...
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, considering Debian doesn't have the marketing impositions of any
> > > > > proprietary commercial product, I find 'Debian 2021', 'Debian 2023', 
> > > > > etc.,
> > > > > reasonably appealing...
> > > >
> > > > This would also be useful in my efforts to explain to my boss
> > > > why we're upgrading the machines.
> > > >
> > > > "It's 2023 and we're running Debian 2021. It's time to upgrade."
> > > 
> > > ++
> > 
> > I don't see how that works. What would your codename be, instead of
> > trixie? How do you know?
> 
> I wouldn't care, because "2023" would be a synonym for
> "bookworm" in all the appropriate files.

Now that bookworm has been released, it's straightforward to assign
to it a Release Number of 2023. But the OP was querying the invention
of the codename trixie. I'm asking what alternative would you choose?

> > a project, and everyone knows what they're talking about. Unlike numbers,
> > names are memorable and unambiguous (when well-chosen).
> 
> buster, bullseye, bookworm. So we can't depend on them to be
> well-chosen.

What's not well-chosen about any one of those codenames? (I know some
people have difficulty distinguishing between words with the same
initial letter, even though their common meanings are completely
different.)

BTW nobody is forcing people to carry on using codenames after they've
been given release numbers. It just says something about their usefulness.

> > You don't have to memorize all of Debian's codenames in order, do you?
> > There are about three or four in current use at any one time. (And the
> > release numbers might be monotonic, but they're not sequential, so
> > memorizing them would be just as tricky.)
> 
> Since I've been using Debian since ... 1.3 ? I have been exposed
> to at least a dozen names.
> 
> It would always have been of more benefit to be able to say
> "that went stable in 2002" or "next stable release will probably
> be in 2025" rather than "3 Woody" and "13 Trixie". Keeping the
> fun name is absolutely fine and indeed useful -- because
> schedules slip and no software should be released before its
> time.
> 
> It's just that, when Trixie becomes stable, it would be very
> useful to be able to put "2025" or "2026" in all my
> documentation and config files instead of "13 Trixie".

I don't think it's sensible to use bare year numbers for releases,
let alone for codenames for as yet unreleased versions, even where
the dates were thought to be predictable. Take a couple of recent
posts, transcribing them from codenames into year numbers:

  I'm not sure what you're reading into that. The 2021 manpage has a
  copyright date of 2006 (Red Hat). But if we look at service itself,
  which is a script, we can see that the ?earliest Debian version was
  written in 2004 by our very own John Hasler, for 2005 through 2009,
  by which time the version we have now, I think, joins it, and
  replaces it in 2011.

It's not immediately clear that 2006 and 2004 are literal dates,
whereas the other numbers were originally codenames.

  You say your system is pre-2017, ie 2015. That means that you will
  have had both iproute2 and net-tools installed, as in 2015 they are
  both ranked important. AFAICT iproute2 has never been ranked lower
  than that, and its predecessor, iproute, was important as far back
  as 2009. (Earlier than that, it could only be optional, because you
  needed various options to have been compiled into the kernel.)

These numbers are all standing for codenames. However, the dates that
they now superficially resemble are misleading, because the ranking
decisions are likely to have been made up to two years or more earlier
than it would seem from the numbers.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[David Wright]

On Sat 01 Jul 2023 at 18:00:01 (+0200), Roger Price wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2023, David Wright wrote:
> 
> > Unlike numbers, names are memorable and unambiguous (when well-chosen).
> 
> This claim is far from evident and needs justification.  The only
> example I can think of is project number 401 which later became the
> product "Titanic". However the name is not memorable in itself: what
> we remember is the maritime disaster.

Leaving aside that Titanic is the real name of the ship and not a
codename, the evidence is all around you. Look no further than
your login name, or the name of your computer. A huge slice of the
Internet's infrastructure, DNS, is concerned with allowing people
to converse with memorable names rather than anonymous numbers.

Going back to your OP, the idea of using a purported Release Number
before release is a recipe for confusion, because people may mistake
it for an actual release before that actually happens. (The way in
which the Debian project is organised is unlikely to result in one
event that sometimes occurs elsewhere: where a distribution is partly
built but abandoned, and a new one started under a fresh codename.
Think MS's Cairo.)

Moving on to ambiguity, any conversation about Debian is going to
involve numbers: dates, version numbers, literal values, addresses,
ports, enumerations, etc. Numbers have to be in a context, which tells
you what sort of number it is. OTOH, with a codename like bookworm,
the context of the list, forum, or whatever, is enough for you to
know what it stands for. And it's "well-chosen" when it's a word
unlikely to occur with a different meaning, and doesn't carry any
misleading implications about the nature of the project, including
release dates.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Joe]

On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 10:45:54 -0400
Stefan Monnier  wrote:

> > But I can't see what's wrong with codenames. It's not just a
> > "tradition", it's standard practice in most fields of endeavour.
> > You slap a name on a project, and everyone knows what they're
> > talking about. Unlike numbers, names are memorable and unambiguous
> > (when well-chosen).  
> 
> AFAICT codenames are common before a project is released.  They're
> much less common afterwards.
> 
> > You don't have to memorize all of Debian's codenames in order, do
> > you?  
> 
> I regularly have to figure out which of Buster/Bookworm/Bullseye/...
> is stable/testing/oldstable, and I must admit that I tend to forget
> and end up having to look it up.
> 
> 
>
Three Bs in a row didn't help.

-- 
Joe

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Roger Price]

On Sat, 1 Jul 2023, David Wright wrote:


Unlike numbers, names are memorable and unambiguous (when well-chosen).


This claim is far from evident and needs justification.  The only example I can 
think of is project number 401 which later became the product "Titanic". However 
the name is not memorable in itself: what we remember is the maritime disaster.


Roger

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Dan Ritter]

David Wright wrote: 
> On Mon 26 Jun 2023 at 17:22:04 (-0400), Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 4:45 PM Dan Ritter  wrote:
> > > riveravaldez wrote:
> > > > It would be possible, as an alternative, to populate sources.list with 
> > > > '2021',
> > > > for instance, instead of 'bullseye', 'bookworm', etc.?
> > > >
> > > > We could have something like, 'Debian 2023 - Bookworm', so, preserving
> > > > tradition, but allowing '2023' to be used as an alternative replacement 
> > > > of
> > > > the traditional name maybe?
> > > >
> > > > Just an idea, looking for a simple solution...
> > > >
> > > > BTW, considering Debian doesn't have the marketing impositions of any
> > > > proprietary commercial product, I find 'Debian 2021', 'Debian 2023', 
> > > > etc.,
> > > > reasonably appealing...
> > >
> > > This would also be useful in my efforts to explain to my boss
> > > why we're upgrading the machines.
> > >
> > > "It's 2023 and we're running Debian 2021. It's time to upgrade."
> > 
> > ++
> 
> I don't see how that works. What would your codename be, instead of
> trixie? How do you know?

I wouldn't care, because "2023" would be a synonym for
"bookworm" in all the appropriate files.

> a project, and everyone knows what they're talking about. Unlike numbers,
> names are memorable and unambiguous (when well-chosen).

buster, bullseye, bookworm. So we can't depend on them to be
well-chosen.

> You don't have to memorize all of Debian's codenames in order, do you?
> There are about three or four in current use at any one time. (And the
> release numbers might be monotonic, but they're not sequential, so
> memorizing them would be just as tricky.)

Since I've been using Debian since ... 1.3 ? I have been exposed
to at least a dozen names.

It would always have been of more benefit to be able to say
"that went stable in 2002" or "next stable release will probably
be in 2025" rather than "3 Woody" and "13 Trixie". Keeping the
fun name is absolutely fine and indeed useful -- because
schedules slip and no software should be released before its
time.

It's just that, when Trixie becomes stable, it would be very
useful to be able to put "2025" or "2026" in all my
documentation and config files instead of "13 Trixie".

-dsr-

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Stefan Monnier]

> But I can't see what's wrong with codenames. It's not just a "tradition",
> it's standard practice in most fields of endeavour. You slap a name on
> a project, and everyone knows what they're talking about. Unlike numbers,
> names are memorable and unambiguous (when well-chosen).

AFAICT codenames are common before a project is released.  They're much
less common afterwards.

> You don't have to memorize all of Debian's codenames in order, do you?

I regularly have to figure out which of Buster/Bookworm/Bullseye/... is
stable/testing/oldstable, and I must admit that I tend to forget and end
up having to look it up.


Stefan

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[David Wright]

On Mon 26 Jun 2023 at 17:22:04 (-0400), Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 4:45 PM Dan Ritter  wrote:
> > riveravaldez wrote:
> > > It would be possible, as an alternative, to populate sources.list with 
> > > '2021',
> > > for instance, instead of 'bullseye', 'bookworm', etc.?
> > >
> > > We could have something like, 'Debian 2023 - Bookworm', so, preserving
> > > tradition, but allowing '2023' to be used as an alternative replacement of
> > > the traditional name maybe?
> > >
> > > Just an idea, looking for a simple solution...
> > >
> > > BTW, considering Debian doesn't have the marketing impositions of any
> > > proprietary commercial product, I find 'Debian 2021', 'Debian 2023', etc.,
> > > reasonably appealing...
> >
> > This would also be useful in my efforts to explain to my boss
> > why we're upgrading the machines.
> >
> > "It's 2023 and we're running Debian 2021. It's time to upgrade."
> 
> ++

I don't see how that works. What would your codename be, instead of
trixie? How do you know?

But I can't see what's wrong with codenames. It's not just a "tradition",
it's standard practice in most fields of endeavour. You slap a name on
a project, and everyone knows what they're talking about. Unlike numbers,
names are memorable and unambiguous (when well-chosen).

You don't have to memorize all of Debian's codenames in order, do you?
There are about three or four in current use at any one time. (And the
release numbers might be monotonic, but they're not sequential, so
memorizing them would be just as tricky.)

Cheers,
David.

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Stefan Monnier]

>> > DO NOT USE "stable" IN YOUR sources.list FILE!
>> And this is because... ?
> Because a full release upgrade is a process that requires planning and
> execution with intent.  There are many steps to follow, in order to
> maximize the chances of it actually working, and not breaking your
> system.
>
> It is not something that can be done automatically.
>
> It is not something that you ever want to happen by *surprise*.

Even if you use `stable` in your `source.list` and `apt.conf` files, the
upgrade won't happen by surprise: you get prompted (during `apt update`)
about the fact that `stable` has changed name (and this prompt can even
be repeated a few times, I think it's once each for those of
`stable-security`, `main`, `contrib`, `non-free`, `non-free-firmware`
you have in your `sources.list`).

> If you use the "stable" label in your source.list file, and if you also
> use automatic upgrades, there is an extremely high chance that your
> system will perform a *partial* release upgrade at some random time when
> you are not expecting it, and that this will leave your system in a
> bad state.

Until you accept the change `apt update` won't even fetch the new
package info, so there should be no automatic upgrade (not even
partial), AFAICT.


Stefan

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[paulf]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 23:06:41 -0400
Greg Wooledge  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 10:51:36PM -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 22:10:38 -0400
> > Greg Wooledge  wrote:
> > 
> > > DO NOT USE "stable" IN YOUR sources.list FILE!
> > > 
> > And this is because... ?
> 

[snip]

> If you use the "stable" label in your source.list file, and if you
> also use automatic upgrades, there is an extremely high chance that
> your system will perform a *partial* release upgrade at some random
> time when you are not expecting it, and that this will leave your
> system in a bad state.
> 

Well then, we're cool. Because I don't know how to do automatic
upgrades, and I wouldn't do them if I knew. If I wanted that sort of
system, I'd use Arch.

I don't "upgrade" my system until Debian does (as in every couple of
years). When I do, I typically wipe and reinstall to remove cruft I've
installed which I don't need but have forgotten to remove. My
reinstall/upgrade is typically driven by a "dkpg --set-selections" where
I have a list of essential packages I maintain. It's a lot of manual
work (hacking configs mainly), but I only have to do it every couple of
years.

Paul

-- 
Paul M. Foster
Personal Blog: http://noferblatz.com
Company Site: http://quillandmouse.com
Software Projects: https://gitlab.com/paulmfoster

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Greg Wooledge]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 08:51:07AM +0200, Erwan David wrote:
> Le 27/06/2023 à 05:06, Greg Wooledge a écrit :
> > 
> > A lot of people who run stable releases use automatic upgrades.  This
> > is a thing that will attempt to run "apt update" and "apt upgrade"
> > automatically for you in the background.
> > 
> > If you use the "stable" label in your source.list file, and if you also
> > use automatic upgrades, there is an extremely high chance that your
> > system will perform a *partial* release upgrade at some random time when
> > you are not expecting it, and that this will leave your system in a
> > bad state.
> > 
> So no, the worst you'll have is that it wil stop upgrading, because you'll
> get "stable release changed it's Codename from bullseye to bookworm do you
> accept ?"
> 
> And it must be manually answered.

Nope.  That is not a thing that happens when you go from one stable
release to the next.

That only occurs if you follow "testing".  Or if you followed "bookworm"
for a few weeks leading up to its release, while it was still testing.

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Erwan David]

Le 27/06/2023 à 05:06, Greg Wooledge a écrit :


A lot of people who run stable releases use automatic upgrades.  This
is a thing that will attempt to run "apt update" and "apt upgrade"
automatically for you in the background.

If you use the "stable" label in your source.list file, and if you also
use automatic upgrades, there is an extremely high chance that your
system will perform a *partial* release upgrade at some random time when
you are not expecting it, and that this will leave your system in a
bad state.

So no, the worst you'll have is that it wil stop upgrading, because 
you'll get "stable release changed it's Codename from bullseye to 
bookworm do you accept ?"


And it must be manually answered.

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[tomas]

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 10:51:36PM -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 22:10:38 -0400
> Greg Wooledge  wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 09:53:33PM -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com
> > wrote:
> > > > * Stable/OldStable/OldOldStable to refer to the current and
> > > > previous releases
> > > 
> > > This sounds good in theory, but in the sources.list file, Debian
> > > defaults to the code names, not "stable"/"testing"/"unstable".
> > > Fixing this requires a manual edit.
> > 
> > DO NOT USE "stable" IN YOUR sources.list FILE!
> > 
> > EVER!!
> > 
> > G!!!
> > 
> 
> And this is because... ? And do you mind if I use "testing"?

OK. Use it. You'll find out :-)

No, seriously. There is a tension there: you want an upgrade process
to be as routine and as painless as possible (some people set it on
autopilot). That's what the "stable" in Debian stable means: It does
come with a big promise [0]: no packages will disappear, no packages
will change their major version. Security fixes will be backported
whenever necessary (of course, short of 60K packages, things happen
from time to time).

In short, you want to be able to say "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade"
with closed eyes and have your daily driver land on its feet. You want
to do that /often/.

On a new release, things happen. Your favourite package dies, because
upstream has lost interest (or has been bought out, or has been sued,
whatever). The Debian maintainer hasn't the means to keep that alive.

A major version of something occurs, and it behaves totally differently.

You want this event to happen whenever you plan for. You want to read
the release notes (otherwise people in this list will be poking fun
at you when you complain [1] ;-)

You have lots of time for that, while stable becomes oldstable and
stays well and alive for quite a while.

Of course, perhaps you are fond of surprises. Or you are on top of
things. Or whatever. Then, of course, by all means, put stable (or
testing, or...) in your source. But people here don't recommend
doing that, for a good reason.

Remember: it's free software: do whatever you like :-)

Cheers

[0] And I thank maintainers for this. Every day.
[1] Nah. People around here aren't like that ;-)
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Greg Wooledge]

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 10:51:36PM -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 22:10:38 -0400
> Greg Wooledge  wrote:
> 
> > DO NOT USE "stable" IN YOUR sources.list FILE!
> > 
> And this is because... ?

Because a full release upgrade is a process that requires planning and
execution with intent.  There are many steps to follow, in order to
maximize the chances of it actually working, and not breaking your
system.

It is not something that can be done automatically.

It is not something that you ever want to happen by *surprise*.

A lot of people who run stable releases use automatic upgrades.  This
is a thing that will attempt to run "apt update" and "apt upgrade"
automatically for you in the background.

If you use the "stable" label in your source.list file, and if you also
use automatic upgrades, there is an extremely high chance that your
system will perform a *partial* release upgrade at some random time when
you are not expecting it, and that this will leave your system in a
bad state.

Always use a release code name.  This will prevent automatic partial
release upgrades from happening and breaking your system.

> And do you mind if I use "testing"?

You do this at your own risk.  I don't care about testing.  Do whatever
you want if you aren't running a stable release.  All the responsibility
is yours.

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[paulf]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 22:10:38 -0400
Greg Wooledge  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 09:53:33PM -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com
> wrote:
> > > * Stable/OldStable/OldOldStable to refer to the current and
> > > previous releases
> > 
> > This sounds good in theory, but in the sources.list file, Debian
> > defaults to the code names, not "stable"/"testing"/"unstable".
> > Fixing this requires a manual edit.
> 
> DO NOT USE "stable" IN YOUR sources.list FILE!
> 
> EVER!!
> 
> G!!!
> 

And this is because... ? And do you mind if I use "testing"?

Paul

-- 
Paul M. Foster
Personal Blog: http://noferblatz.com
Company Site: http://quillandmouse.com
Software Projects: https://gitlab.com/paulmfoster

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Greg Wooledge]

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 09:53:33PM -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote:
> > * Stable/OldStable/OldOldStable to refer to the current and previous 
> > releases
> 
> This sounds good in theory, but in the sources.list file, Debian
> defaults to the code names, not "stable"/"testing"/"unstable". Fixing
> this requires a manual edit.

DO NOT USE "stable" IN YOUR sources.list FILE!

EVER!!

G!!!

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[paulf]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 21:01:17 +0200
Nicolas George  wrote:

[snip]

> Twenty five years ago I started naming my computers after the
> characters in an obscure French sci-fi duology. The names are still
> pretty much unique, but I have had trouble finding names for new
> boxes, especially since it has been a longtime I read these books and
> they do not have a fandom wiki. So recently I switched to another
> source for names. No, not Tolkien. Nor Star Wars. The boxes are named
> tehol, brys, kruppe, silverfox, etc. If you know the series, you
> guess I will not be short of names anytime soon :-)

About the same time ago, I decided on cartoon characters. There's a
long list from my childhood. If I ever run out, it will be stellar
names.

Paul

-- 
Paul M. Foster
Personal Blog: http://noferblatz.com
Company Site: http://quillandmouse.com
Software Projects: https://gitlab.com/paulmfoster

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[paulf]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 17:04:57 +0100
Darac Marjal  wrote:

> 
> On 26/06/2023 09:18, Roger Price wrote:
> > I have difficulty remembering the Debian code names for releases
> > Buzz Rex Bo Hamm Slink Potato Woody Sarge Etch Lenny Squeeze Wheezy
> > Jessie Stretch Buster Bullseye Bookworm Trixie and Forky.
> >
> > It's much easier to remember that release numbers are in a sequence 
> > 1.1 ... 14.
> >
> > Quoting from Google's response to the question “why does Debian
> > have code names?”: « Originally, part of the reason for code names
> > was because it was not clear whether the next release would be
> > considered a point release or not: " we didn't know whether etch
> > would be released as Debian 3.2 or Debian 4.0 ". »
> >
> > Etch was released as Debian 4.0 in May 2010.  Is there some reason
> > why Debian still continues to invent and use code names?
> 
> OK, a question back at you, then: Why do you feel the need to
> remember Debian codenames? As you can see, the intention of code
> names is so that developers (of Debian) have a way to refer to an
> as-yet-unreleased collection of packages. Once those set of packages
> are released (literally, put out there in the wild), then they become
> a numbered version.
> 
> So, I'd say that, as a user of Debian, you basically want to refer to 
> two things:
> 
> * Stable/OldStable/OldOldStable to refer to the current and previous 
> releases

This sounds good in theory, but in the sources.list file, Debian
defaults to the code names, not "stable"/"testing"/"unstable". Fixing
this requires a manual edit.

Paul

-- 
Paul M. Foster
Personal Blog: http://noferblatz.com
Company Site: http://quillandmouse.com
Software Projects: https://gitlab.com/paulmfoster

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 4:45 PM Dan Ritter  wrote:
>
> riveravaldez wrote:
> > It would be possible, as an alternative, to populate sources.list with 
> > '2021',
> > for instance, instead of 'bullseye', 'bookworm', etc.?
> >
> > We could have something like, 'Debian 2023 - Bookworm', so, preserving
> > tradition, but allowing '2023' to be used as an alternative replacement of
> > the traditional name maybe?
> >
> > Just an idea, looking for a simple solution...
> >
> > BTW, considering Debian doesn't have the marketing impositions of any
> > proprietary commercial product, I find 'Debian 2021', 'Debian 2023', etc.,
> > reasonably appealing...
>
> This would also be useful in my efforts to explain to my boss
> why we're upgrading the machines.
>
> "It's 2023 and we're running Debian 2021. It's time to upgrade."

++

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Dan Ritter]

riveravaldez wrote: 
> It would be possible, as an alternative, to populate sources.list with '2021',
> for instance, instead of 'bullseye', 'bookworm', etc.?
> 
> We could have something like, 'Debian 2023 - Bookworm', so, preserving
> tradition, but allowing '2023' to be used as an alternative replacement of
> the traditional name maybe?
> 
> Just an idea, looking for a simple solution...
> 
> BTW, considering Debian doesn't have the marketing impositions of any
> proprietary commercial product, I find 'Debian 2021', 'Debian 2023', etc.,
> reasonably appealing...

This would also be useful in my efforts to explain to my boss
why we're upgrading the machines.

"It's 2023 and we're running Debian 2021. It's time to upgrade."

-dsr-

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[riveravaldez]

On 6/26/23, Nicolas George  wrote:
> ghe2001 (12023-06-26):
> (...)
> What works for Ubuntu is that their version numbers are really the year.
> We know what year we are in, usually.

It would be possible, as an alternative, to populate sources.list with '2021',
for instance, instead of 'bullseye', 'bookworm', etc.?

We could have something like, 'Debian 2023 - Bookworm', so, preserving
tradition, but allowing '2023' to be used as an alternative replacement of
the traditional name maybe?

Just an idea, looking for a simple solution...

BTW, considering Debian doesn't have the marketing impositions of any
proprietary commercial product, I find 'Debian 2021', 'Debian 2023', etc.,
reasonably appealing...

Kind regards!

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Ash Joubert]

On 27/06/2023 03:40, Kent West wrote:

Code-names are awesome. I prefer them to be something like "First" or
"Secundo" or "Twelve"


The wallpaper for Ubuntu Hardy Heron was exquisite.

--
Ash Joubert (they/them) 
Director / Game Developer
Transient Software Limited 
New Zealand

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 06:33:37PM +0200, Roger Price wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023, Darac Marjal wrote:
> 

The reason for Debian using code names - and it was one of the first Linux
distributions to use code names routinely - was very simple.

Debian 1.0 never happened. InfoMagic took a copy of Debian which wasn't 
finished and called it "1.0" - see Debian announce from the DPL at that
point.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/1995/msg00010.html

Bruce Perens was Debian Project Leader at that point (and worked for Pixar,
then an independent company and makers of the Toy Story film).

Codenames make sense for long running tracking of Debian releases - and that's
how they're used by both developers and users.
> 
> Ideally that is how it should work, but usage of code names persists in this
> user list.  I have no problem with code names in the dev list.
> 

I do try to reference both codenames and release numbers whenever I refer to
any Debian release. Potentially, it's not very important to remember more 
than current testing/stable/old stable - anything much older isn't worth
considering routinely unless you find an old machine you suddenly need to
update.

[Experimental]  [RC-Buggy] - not a full distribution
Sid Sid unstable - never released as a distribution
[13]Trixie  testing
12  Bookwormstable
11  Bullseyeoldstable
10  Buster  oldoldstable

> > OK, a question back at you, then: Why do you feel the need to remember
> > Debian codenames?
> 
> Because the members of this list continue to use code names.
> 

Referring to a codename does allow you to track any particular distribution
by codename as it passes through the symlink stages of  testing -> stable
 -> oldstable -> oldoldstable [-> oldoldoldstable]

> > So, I'd say that, as a user of Debian, you basically want to refer to
> > two things:
> > * Stable/OldStable/OldOldStable to refer to the current and previous 
> > releases
> > * A number to refer to the released version.
> 
> Agreed.  I would always use the number to refer to a released version, but
> the problem is that it is not the general usage in this list.
> 
> Roger
>

This is fairly well documented on Debian wiki pages and Wikipedia.

Hope this helps somebody.

With every good wish, as ever,

Andy 

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Nicolas George]

ghe2001 (12023-06-26):
> I've been using Debian for some 20 years, and I've had the impression
> that Ian started with the major characters in Toy Story and the names
> have moved toward the minor ones (no proof, just an impression).

That is the problem with major characters, there are a limited number of
them, especially in a franchise of five kids movies.

Twenty five years ago I started naming my computers after the characters
in an obscure French sci-fi duology. The names are still pretty much
unique, but I have had trouble finding names for new boxes, especially
since it has been a longtime I read these books and they do not have a
fandom wiki. So recently I switched to another source for names. No, not
Tolkien. Nor Star Wars. The boxes are named tehol, brys, kruppe,
silverfox, etc. If you know the series, you guess I will not be short of
names anytime soon :-)

But computer names are not the same issue as release names. Computer
names must evoke a role in a network, and that can plug into the
identity of a character in a story. Release names must evoke a
chronology.

Version numbers are not an ideal solution, though: after we go into the
multiple decimal digits territory it becomes hard to remember exactly
where we are, especially since it frequently changes. (How old are you?
Did you have to subtract your birth year to the current year to know, if
only the units digits?)

What works for Ubuntu is that their version numbers are really the year.
We know what year we are in, usually.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[ghe2001]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

I've been using Debian for some 20 years, and I've had the impression that Ian 
started with the major characters in Toy Story and the names have moved toward 
the minor ones (no proof, just an impression).  I'm sure it seemed to be a good 
idea at the time ("Sid" was a wonderful idea).  But I've felt for some time now 
that they're running out of names, and Bookworm kinda proves that to me :-)

I've never had a problem with the names, but something has to be done, for 
sure.  How about using names (max of 4 syllables long in a 50 or 100 length 
sorted list) followed by a number?  Where the release could be referred to, on 
the list or in sources.list, by either the name or the number?

Get some names from named stars or constellations or galaxies, or maybe the 
elements?

--
Glenn English

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: ProtonMail

wsBzBAEBCAAnBYJkmdvxCZCf14YxgqyMMhYhBCyicw9CUnAlY0ANl5/XhjGC
rIwyAABvlwf/S05ye+pKCccHFcsv+Nq5oesy79ETyLWGunw2qzSSZiI0jCU0
n2J6FZEIVx1EmUc0egFc+AvO8Z4U2PhZC/H2dPxhppzkObd3lWW7VKcKwmxG
Rx6sOBOb/x18+PO93CTg/8ZQLuK8QK8/Tr2sYNHFeqMnKxhw4RLlNce5mx6Z
47eFzSwlCB8NjFuD6QTddBxtUr6K30nxzvMFvv9VwxQxbn+4GOvBFlwGuayt
wJRvP9q9VtctMnb1w1uLELoC9asBpV+8zt3FnbAFGKzKRdIwhw6P9vDt8hBa
9ex9Ru1JqFhB4LZXxzIQvbge2oqn82DixJncWKAl8Tw7O3ukZFaF+A==
=1wRb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Roger Price]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023, Darac Marjal wrote:

As you can see, the intention of code names is so that developers 
(of Debian) have a way to refer to an as-yet-unreleased collection of 
packages. Once those set of packages are released (literally, put out there 
in the wild), then they become a numbered version.


Ideally that is how it should work, but usage of code names persists in this 
user list.  I have no problem with code names in the dev list.


OK, a question back at you, then: Why do you feel the need to remember Debian 
codenames?


Because the members of this list continue to use code names.

So, I'd say that, as a user of Debian, you basically want to refer to two 
things:

* Stable/OldStable/OldOldStable to refer to the current and previous releases
* A number to refer to the released version.


Agreed.  I would always use the number to refer to a released version, but the 
problem is that it is not the general usage in this list.


Roger

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:21 PM Charles Curley
 wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 17:04:57 +0100
> Darac Marjal  wrote:
>
> > OK, a question back at you, then: Why do you feel the need to
> > remember Debian codenames?
>
> Imprimis: Because you use the code names as part of configuring
> systems, e.g. in /etc/apt/sources.list
>
> Secundus: Because some utilities and documentation refer only to code
> names.
>
> Tertius: Because many people use the code names, so it is polite to
> refer both to version number and code name in communications.
>
> > To put it another way, do you need to remember that Windows 95 was
> > codenamed "Chicago", or that Windows 7  was "Longhorn"? Probably not,
> > unless you're a developer of Windows, right?
>
> Microsoft Windows versioning is not an example of a best practice.

Hear, hear!

Is anything they do a best practice nowadays? Most of my interactions
with the company are their endless stream of pornographic spam from
SharePointOnline.com.

Jeff

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Charles Curley]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 17:04:57 +0100
Darac Marjal  wrote:

> OK, a question back at you, then: Why do you feel the need to
> remember Debian codenames?

Imprimis: Because you use the code names as part of configuring
systems, e.g. in /etc/apt/sources.list

Secundus: Because some utilities and documentation refer only to code
names.

Tertius: Because many people use the code names, so it is polite to
refer both to version number and code name in communications.

> To put it another way, do you need to remember that Windows 95 was 
> codenamed "Chicago", or that Windows 7  was "Longhorn"? Probably not, 
> unless you're a developer of Windows, right?

Microsoft Windows versioning is not an example of a best practice.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Darac Marjal]

On 26/06/2023 09:18, Roger Price wrote:
I have difficulty remembering the Debian code names for releases Buzz 
Rex Bo Hamm Slink Potato Woody Sarge Etch Lenny Squeeze Wheezy Jessie 
Stretch Buster Bullseye Bookworm Trixie and Forky.


It's much easier to remember that release numbers are in a sequence 
1.1 ... 14.


Quoting from Google's response to the question “why does Debian have 
code names?”: « Originally, part of the reason for code names was 
because it was not clear whether the next release would be considered 
a point release or not: " we didn't know whether etch would be 
released as Debian 3.2 or Debian 4.0 ". »


Etch was released as Debian 4.0 in May 2010.  Is there some reason why 
Debian still continues to invent and use code names?


OK, a question back at you, then: Why do you feel the need to remember 
Debian codenames? As you can see, the intention of code names is so that 
developers (of Debian) have a way to refer to an as-yet-unreleased 
collection of packages. Once those set of packages are released 
(literally, put out there in the wild), then they become a numbered version.


So, I'd say that, as a user of Debian, you basically want to refer to 
two things:


* Stable/OldStable/OldOldStable to refer to the current and previous 
releases


* A number to refer to the released version.

To put it another way, do you need to remember that Windows 95 was 
codenamed "Chicago", or that Windows 7  was "Longhorn"? Probably not, 
unless you're a developer of Windows, right?




OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[The Wanderer]

On 2023-06-26 at 11:40, Kent West wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 10:29 AM Arno Lehmann  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Also, I struggle with the names, always need to go to the project web
>> page or wikipedia if I need to look up which version has which name, and
>> it's always a nuisance.
>> 
>
> Code-names are awesome. I prefer them to be something like "First" or
> "Secundo" or "Twelve"

If you think the Debian release codenames are bad, take a look at the
release labels mentioned in /usr/share/doc/nano/changelog.Debian.gz.

The last several releases listed have the following changelog entries:

  * The "Duque de Feria" release.
  * The "Explicaciones, ¿de qué? Jajaja" release.
  * The "Cent anys de Joan Fuster" release.
  * The "Home Petrov, si soc jo!" release.
  * The "Blue checkmark" release.

And this is fairly typical; the least typical of those is the last,
which is actually in recognizable English, and references something that
I actually recognize.

I have no information about the background to this, at all.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Stefan Monnier]

> Also, I struggle with the names, always need to go to the project web page
>  or wikipedia if I need to look up which version has which name, and it's
> always a nuisance.
>
> A small one, though. Also, I really like the Debian project, its resulting
> software collections, and thus my wish is to keep those code names, as
> inconsistent and hard to memorize they are. It's Debian, and I like
> it. I still have etchnhalf running on two old boxes, even :-)

Seeing how we're currently at a name that starts with `b`, maybe it's
a good time to switch to a naming scheme that orders the release
names alphabetically.

IOW:
- choose the next, say, 50 names now.
- sort them alphabetically.
- throw away all those that sort before Bookworm.
- done.

We get our cake and eat it too.  Obviously it won't fix the past (tho
maybe we can use the thrown-away names at step 3 to retroactively add
aliases to the old names, making their naming situation even more fun).


Stefan

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Kent West]

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 10:29 AM Arno Lehmann  wrote:

> 
> Also, I struggle with the names, always need to go to the project web
> page or wikipedia if I need to look up which version has which name, and
> it's always a nuisance.
> 
>
>
Code-names are awesome. I prefer them to be something like "First" or
"Secundo" or "Twelve"


-- 
Kent West<")))><
IT Support / Client Support
Abilene Christian University
Westing Peacefully - http://kentwest.blogspot.com

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Arno Lehmann]

Hi all,

I have read a few replies here.

I am in no way affiliated with those people who originally introduced 
the names or assign them now.


The only real answer to the actual question that I can see is "It's a 
tradition".


Also, I struggle with the names, always need to go to the project web 
page or wikipedia if I need to look up which version has which name, and 
it's always a nuisance.


A small one, though. Also, I really like the Debian project, its 
resulting software collections, and thus my wish is to keep those code 
names, as inconsistent and hard to memorize they are. It's Debian, and I 
like it. I still have etchnhalf running on two old boxes, even :-)



Oh, and also, for any sort of managed installation all this would not 
matter much. On those manually maintained and upgraded systems where it 
does make a difference, the real pain is in other places.


Cheers,

Arno

--
Arno Lehmann

IT-Service Lehmann
Sandstr. 6, 49080 Osnabrück

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[riveravaldez]

On Monday, June 26, 2023, Charles Curley 
wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 10:18:30 +0200 (CEST)
> Roger Price  wrote:
>
>> Is there some reason why Debian still continues to invent and use
>> code names?
>
> At least use some sequence of code names with an order to them.
> Ubuntu's code names are in alphabetical order. Maybe the names of
> the elements?

I have to agree. Not being a Toy Story fan and being the names completely
arbitrary makes it hard to remember and impossible to infer. I have to
check the names each time I'm in need to know what's some version's name.
I know it's tradition and not a big issue, but maybe it could be easily
improved in some way?
Kind regards to all!

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Charles Curley]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 10:18:30 +0200 (CEST)
Roger Price  wrote:

> Is there some reason why Debian still continues to invent and use
> code names?

At least use some sequence of code names with an order to them.
Ubuntu's code names are in alphabetical order. Maybe the names of
the elements?

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[tomas]

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 10:18:30AM +0200, Roger Price wrote:
> I have difficulty remembering the Debian code names for releases Buzz Rex Bo
> Hamm Slink Potato Woody Sarge Etch Lenny Squeeze Wheezy Jessie Stretch
> Buster Bullseye Bookworm Trixie and Forky.
> 
> It's much easier to remember that release numbers are in a sequence 1.1 ... 
> 14.
> 
> Quoting from Google's response to the question

Don't ask a random half baked "AI": they actually are large
language models. They tend to make things up.

> See also https://lwn.net/Articles/792646/ “Debian and code names” July 3rd 
> 2019.

That's better.

I don't remember always. I look things up:

  https://www.debian.org/releases/
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_version_history

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 4:18 AM Roger Price  wrote:
>
> I have difficulty remembering the Debian code names for releases Buzz Rex Bo
> Hamm Slink Potato Woody Sarge Etch Lenny Squeeze Wheezy Jessie Stretch Buster
> Bullseye Bookworm Trixie and Forky.
>
> It's much easier to remember that release numbers are in a sequence 1.1 ... 
> 14.
>
> Quoting from Google's response to the question “why does Debian have code
> names?”: « Originally, part of the reason for code names was because it was 
> not
> clear whether the next release would be considered a point release or not: " 
> we
> didn't know whether etch would be released as Debian 3.2 or Debian 4.0 ". »
>
> Etch was released as Debian 4.0 in May 2010.  Is there some reason why Debian
> still continues to invent and use code names?
>
> See also https://lwn.net/Articles/792646/ “Debian and code names” July 3rd 
> 2019.

I think it is mostly tradition nowadays.

By the way, if you watch Toy Story, it may be a little easier to
remember some of the current names. That is until Debian pegs to
another movie.

Jeff

Why does Debian have code names for releases?

[Roger Price]

I have difficulty remembering the Debian code names for releases Buzz Rex Bo 
Hamm Slink Potato Woody Sarge Etch Lenny Squeeze Wheezy Jessie Stretch Buster 
Bullseye Bookworm Trixie and Forky.


It's much easier to remember that release numbers are in a sequence 1.1 ... 14.

Quoting from Google's response to the question “why does Debian have code 
names?”: « Originally, part of the reason for code names was because it was not 
clear whether the next release would be considered a point release or not: " we 
didn't know whether etch would be released as Debian 3.2 or Debian 4.0 ". »


Etch was released as Debian 4.0 in May 2010.  Is there some reason why Debian 
still continues to invent and use code names?


Roger

See also https://lwn.net/Articles/792646/ “Debian and code names” July 3rd 2019.