On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Brandon Mitchell wrote:
>
> > Moral of the story, version numbers are specific to the product, don't
> > bother comparing.
>
> Jeez, I never said I had trouble with it, only that it is confusing to
> people in the real unix world that have not been exposed to it. Get it
> through your head that not everyone that uses Unix has ever seen a Linux
> machine, has ever looked at a Linux website, or has even seriously
> considered installing it anywhere. These people tend to have a SPARC2 or
> better on their desk at home running Solaris or maybe an IPC or IPX
> running SunOS.
Now now, let's not ruffle any feathers. I also know people that are unix
only. I'm just trying to be realistic. What kind of solution are you
looking for?
!) Better definition of when a major release happens? This can be added
to policy. At the rate debian-devel is pushing for 3-4 month releases,
I'd say make the major number change whenever one of these releases
acheives a major Debian goal (i.e. the new file system layout or apt with
all the gui stuff).
2) The addition of LSB numbers to our distribution? When they have
something done and put a version number on it, I'd assume debian, red hat,
and others will all do this.
3) More frequent major release numbers? This seems to be an artificial
inflation of numbers for no reason other than some attempt to compare us
by version number alone to other distributions.
4) Smarter users? This is the best solution, but I don't know if there
are many here willing to open a school for your friends.
Brandon
P.S. What's the version number on your friends copy of unix? I think I'll
try banning the use of sun at my work place because they are only at
version 2.6 :-)
--+--
Brandon Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Debian Testing Group Status
PGP Key: finger -l [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://bhmit1.home.ml.org/deb/
Dijkstra probably hates me (Linus Torvalds, in kernel/sched.c)
--
Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
