Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #190981 > unrolled thread

Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-01-12 14:50 +0100
    Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for  wheezy-backports) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2018-01-12 15:00 +0100
      Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-01-12 15:20 +0100
      Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for  wheezy-backports) Ian Campbell <ijc@debian.org> - 2018-01-12 15:50 +0100
        Re: Frustration over Debian naming Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2018-01-12 16:10 +0100
        Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for  wheezy-backports) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-01-12 22:10 +0100
          Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-01-13 04:20 +0100
            Re: Frustration over Debian naming John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-01-13 04:40 +0100
              Re: Frustration over Debian naming David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-01-13 18:10 +0100
          Re: Frustration over Debian naming Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-01-13 05:00 +0100
            Re: Frustration over Debian naming David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-01-13 17:40 +0100
          Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for  wheezy-backports) Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă <I.M.Ciobica@upcmail.nl> - 2018-01-13 05:40 +0100
            Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-01-13 12:00 +0100
              Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for  wheezy-backports) bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> - 2018-01-13 15:10 +0100
                Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-01-13 16:10 +0100
                  Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for  wheezy-backports) bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> - 2018-01-13 16:30 +0100
                    Re: Frustration over Debian naming Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@surfnaked.ca> - 2018-01-14 01:00 +0100
                Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for  wheezy-backports) Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă <I.M.Ciobica@upcmail.nl> - 2018-01-13 16:10 +0100
            Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for  wheezy-backports) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-01-13 17:40 +0100
              Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for  wheezy-backports) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-01-13 18:10 +0100
                Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for  wheezy-backports) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-01-13 20:20 +0100
          Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for  wheezy-backports) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-01-13 16:20 +0100
            Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for  wheezy-backports) Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2018-01-13 16:40 +0100
              Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports) Glenn English <ghe2001@gmail.com> - 2018-01-13 18:00 +0100
                Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for  wheezy-backports) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-01-13 18:10 +0100
    Re: Frustration over Debian naming Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2018-02-05 23:50 +0100
      Re: Frustration over Debian naming Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2018-02-06 07:30 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#190981 — Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

Intentionally cross posted.

On Friday, January 12, 2018 04:58:38 AM Richard Hector wrote:
> Apologies for my misunderstanding. I hadn't made the mental link from
> wheezy to LTS (I don't (think I) have any wheezy machines left myself,
> but have acquired clients who do).

Aside: For those on the debian-user lists, the thread came from the debian-
backports list, but my frustration should probably be expressed more to the 
debian-user list (or debian-developer list, assuming there is such a list (to 
which I am not subscribed).

I like Debian, a lot, and have used it since 5.n (was that Lenny??), and will 
probably stick with it as my main daily user system (for some special purposes 
I will install other distros--e.g., I want to do some development for an 
application (Scintilla)  that requires C++ version 17 (iiuc) (although they do 
have an LTS support version that can be compiled with C++ version 11).

But the various names and use of those names gets very frustrating for me, and 
I suspect I am not the only one.  The numbered versions, the Toy Story names, 
and then the testing, stable, old stable, old old stable is just frustrating.

I'm not proposing a soltuion, I'm just expressing frustration.  I guess, for 
me, at first glance, the numbered versions seem easiest (and most 
straightforward)  to me.

I do susbscribe to the backports list.  Maybe someone will tell me that as an 
"ordinary user" I shouldn't, but I think others like myself may subscribe just 
to keep somewhat informed.

Anyway, have a good day.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#190982 — Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:49:05AM -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> But the various names and use of those names gets very frustrating for me, and 
> I suspect I am not the only one.  The numbered versions, the Toy Story names, 
> and then the testing, stable, old stable, old old stable is just frustrating.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_version_history explains this
nicely and is linked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#190983

On Friday, January 12, 2018 09:01:34 AM Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 13:54 +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:49:05AM -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > > But the various names and use of those names gets very frustrating
> > > for me, and
> > > I suspect I am not the only one.  The numbered versions, the Toy
> > > Story names,
> > > and then the testing, stable, old stable, old old stable is just
> > > frustrating.
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_version_history explains this
> > nicely and is linked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian
> 
> I took their point to be that if one needs a wiki page to follow the
> versioning scheme then perhaps the versioning scheme has an issue.

+1---thanks for amplifying / clarifying my point!

> IIRC teams like the Press Team have a policy of always leading with the
> numerical version rather than the code names, presumably for this very
> reason, but that doesn't carry over into "casual" conversation like the
> parent thread or the repo urls etc.

I like that (leading with the numerical version)!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#190985 — Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 13:54 +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:49:05AM -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > But the various names and use of those names gets very frustrating
> > for me, and 
> > I suspect I am not the only one.  The numbered versions, the Toy
> > Story names, 
> > and then the testing, stable, old stable, old old stable is just
> > frustrating.
> 
>  
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_version_history explains this
> nicely and is linked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian

I took their point to be that if one needs a wiki page to follow the
versioning scheme then perhaps the versioning scheme has an issue.

IIRC teams like the Press Team have a policy of always leading with the
numerical version rather than the code names, presumably for this very
reason, but that doesn't carry over into "casual" conversation like the
parent thread or the repo urls etc.

Ian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#190987 — Re: Frustration over Debian naming

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Ian Campbell [2018-01-12 14:01:34Z] wrote:

> On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 13:54 +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_version_history explains this
>> nicely and is linked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian
>
> I took their point to be that if one needs a wiki page to follow the
> versioning scheme then perhaps the versioning scheme has an issue.

I started with Debian Woody and I did remember and use the names of a
couple of following versions but then it started to be quite difficult.
I mentally switched to version numbers. Honestly, I don't remember the
name of current Debian 9 which is the version I use. It's trivial to
check, though.

-- 
/// Teemu Likonen   - .-..   <https://keybase.io/tlikonen> //
// PGP: 4E10 55DC 84E9 DFF6 13D7 8557 719D 69D3 2453 9450 ///

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#191006 — Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Fri 12 Jan 2018 at 14:01:34 (+0000), Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 13:54 +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:49:05AM -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > > But the various names and use of those names gets very frustrating
> > > for me, and 
> > > I suspect I am not the only one.  The numbered versions, the Toy
> > > Story names, 
> > > and then the testing, stable, old stable, old old stable is just
> > > frustrating.
> > 
> >  
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_version_history explains this
> > nicely and is linked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian
> 
> I took their point to be that if one needs a wiki page to follow the
> versioning scheme then perhaps the versioning scheme has an issue.

I disagree with that, and with the view that you don't need 3½
schemes to describe the situation. That page is a useful summary
for people unfamiliar with the schemes and their relationships.

I would prefer, however, that buster were not described as 10,
nor bullseye 11, just as buzz was not released as version 1.0.

> IIRC teams like the Press Team have a policy of always leading with the
> numerical version rather than the code names, presumably for this very
> reason,

Which reason? The formal name of a release is the Release number.
As point releases are issued, the Release number changes; the
code name doesn't. When a release becomes ancient history, its
code name still applies to it and the all its point releases,
whatever numbering scheme is then in force.

> but that doesn't carry over into "casual" conversation like the
> parent thread or the repo urls etc.

No, for several reasons which may differ between people. In this
specific case, wheezy-backports packages are packaged for
installation on wheezy systems, but they're not part of any
Debian [0-9]+ release; using a Release number (which one?) would
carry misleading implications.

Another reason: it's a convention that organisations use
because it works. It's less ambiguous to write jessie than 8
especially in contexts where lots of numbers are being discussed,
and it's more memorable to most people. People use names,
computers like numbers.

As for stable etc, at the users' end, they're designed to give
a seamless path for any particular system to evolve through the
upgrade process. At the developers' end, they provide static
handles for the discussion of how packages migrate through the
repositories. LTS is somewhat similar.

Some people always seem to remain confused. Perhaps they have
the same confusion with timezones, for similar reasons.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#191019

On Friday, January 12, 2018 04:03:25 PM David Wright wrote:
> Another reason: it's a convention that organisations use
> because it works. It's less ambiguous to write jessie than 8
> especially in contexts where lots of numbers are being discussed,
> and it's more memorable to most people. People use names,
> computers like numbers.

I don't want to respond to most of what you wrote, although I generally 
disagree.

Numbers were used by people long before computers came into being, and for 
things that have some sequential aspect (like releases of computer software), 
numbers are very convenient and easy to remember.

The Toy Story names have no inherent sequence to them, and fail to aid in my 
(and I suspect several others) understanding.

Timezones using numbers (e.g., GMT -5) are much easier to understand than, for 
example, EST, EDT, etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#191020 — Re: Frustration over Debian naming

rhkramer writes:
> The Toy Story names have no inherent sequence to them, and fail to aid
> in my (and I suspect several others) understanding.

I dislike them as well and would also prefer numbers.  I never saw the
movie nor had any interest in it so to me the names might as well have
been picked at random from a list of Hindu gods.

For those who prefer words, how about "One", "Two", .... ?
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#191045 — Re: Frustration over Debian naming

On Fri 12 Jan 2018 at 21:29:34 (-0600), John Hasler wrote:
> rhkramer writes:
> > The Toy Story names have no inherent sequence to them, and fail to aid
> > in my (and I suspect several others) understanding.
> 
> I dislike them as well and would also prefer numbers.  I never saw the
> movie nor had any interest in it so to me the names might as well have
> been picked at random from a list of Hindu gods.

I'm sure there's a project somewhere in the world that has done just
that. I don't think Intel expects their employees to have any particular
interest in geographical features.

> For those who prefer words, how about "One", "Two", .... ?

There's good precedent: the English aristocracy (though in Latin).
I notice there's an English politician who has revived the practice.
But it only works in one constituency (no pun intended), ie Debian.
Most projects take a larger world view.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#191021 — Re: Frustration over Debian naming

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 13/01/18 10:03, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 12 Jan 2018 at 14:01:34 (+0000), Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 13:54 +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:49:05AM -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> But the various names and use of those names gets very frustrating
>>>> for me, and 
>>>> I suspect I am not the only one.  The numbered versions, the Toy
>>>> Story names, 
>>>> and then the testing, stable, old stable, old old stable is just
>>>> frustrating.
>>>
>>>  
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_version_history explains this
>>> nicely and is linked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian
>>
>> I took their point to be that if one needs a wiki page to follow the
>> versioning scheme then perhaps the versioning scheme has an issue.
> 
> I disagree with that, and with the view that you don't need 3½
> schemes to describe the situation. That page is a useful summary
> for people unfamiliar with the schemes and their relationships.

I agree with rhkramer, that if you need to look it up, it's a bit
confusing. I tend to think of releases by their codenames, and have to
occasionally look up the numbers, and generally have no idea what's in
'LTS' status.

> I would prefer, however, that buster were not described as 10,
> nor bullseye 11, just as buzz was not released as version 1.0.

You mean they shouldn't be numbered till they're released? And according
to the wikipedia page, buzz never was 1.0; it was 1.1, released or
otherwise.

>> IIRC teams like the Press Team have a policy of always leading with the
>> numerical version rather than the code names, presumably for this very
>> reason,
> 
> Which reason? The formal name of a release is the Release number.
> As point releases are issued, the Release number changes; the
> code name doesn't. When a release becomes ancient history, its
> code name still applies to it and the all its point releases,
> whatever numbering scheme is then in force.

Except you can't really tell from the release number whether it's a new
release or not. Historically, sometimes a point release has been a new
release, and other times it hasn't. AFAIK a new code name is always 1:1
with needing to read the release notes and using dist-upgrade or whatever.

>> but that doesn't carry over into "casual" conversation like the
>> parent thread or the repo urls etc.
> 
> No, for several reasons which may differ between people. In this
> specific case, wheezy-backports packages are packaged for
> installation on wheezy systems, but they're not part of any
> Debian [0-9]+ release; using a Release number (which one?) would
> carry misleading implications.
> 
> Another reason: it's a convention that organisations use
> because it works. It's less ambiguous to write jessie than 8
> especially in contexts where lots of numbers are being discussed,
> and it's more memorable to most people. People use names,
> computers like numbers.

I don't think the 'number' as used here is particularly more
computer-friendly; it's still a string. And sources.list uses names, and
AFAIK doesn't translate to numbers before talking to the repo.

> As for stable etc, at the users' end, they're designed to give
> a seamless path for any particular system to evolve through the
> upgrade process.

Do they though? Is it ever recommended to let a 'stable' installation be
upgraded to the next release without manual intervention and lots of
care? I certainly always use codenames in sources.list, so I can control
when the upgrade happens.

> At the developers' end, they provide static
> handles for the discussion of how packages migrate through the
> repositories. LTS is somewhat similar.

I guess LTS is more or less a synonym for 'oldoldstable', right? A
moving target, anyway.

> Some people always seem to remain confused. Perhaps they have
> the same confusion with timezones, for similar reasons.

Verging on personal, but whatever.

Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#191040 — Re: Frustration over Debian naming

On Sat 13 Jan 2018 at 16:49:34 (+1300), Richard Hector wrote:
> On 13/01/18 10:03, David Wright wrote:
> > On Fri 12 Jan 2018 at 14:01:34 (+0000), Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 13:54 +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:49:05AM -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> But the various names and use of those names gets very frustrating
> >>>> for me, and 
> >>>> I suspect I am not the only one.  The numbered versions, the Toy
> >>>> Story names, 
> >>>> and then the testing, stable, old stable, old old stable is just
> >>>> frustrating.
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_version_history explains this
> >>> nicely and is linked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian
> >>
> >> I took their point to be that if one needs a wiki page to follow the
> >> versioning scheme then perhaps the versioning scheme has an issue.
> > 
> > I disagree with that, and with the view that you don't need 3½
> > schemes to describe the situation. That page is a useful summary
> > for people unfamiliar with the schemes and their relationships.
> 
> I agree with rhkramer, that if you need to look it up, it's a bit
> confusing. I tend to think of releases by their codenames, and have to
> occasionally look up the numbers, and generally have no idea what's in
> 'LTS' status.
> 
> > I would prefer, however, that buster were not described as 10,
> > nor bullseye 11, just as buzz was not released as version 1.0.
> 
> You mean they shouldn't be numbered till they're released? And according
> to the wikipedia page, buzz never was 1.0; it was 1.1, released or
> otherwise.

That's right. My own experience with Debian only goes back to buzz
after it was released. (Before that I briefly used Slackware installed
onto FAT filesystems.)

But think back to late'95/early'96. You're about to build the first
full release, your version 1.0. It needs a name, if only to put on
the front of the filing cabinet/at the top of the directory tree.
Ambitiously, you write "1.0". Roll on mid'96 and someone erroneously
releases and distributes it.

Now you have two versions 1.0s, the legitimate one and the rogue one.
So now you've got to change the name of your project. All the files/
documents/correspondence about the project (which is unchanged at
this moment) has the wrong name on it.

Almost every business in the world has learnt the practice of using
static, neutral names for projects. A similar argument applies to
computers. Accounting probably give them inventory numbers, but
they need names, so up pops an RFC to give advice on dos and don'ts.

> >> IIRC teams like the Press Team have a policy of always leading with the
> >> numerical version rather than the code names, presumably for this very
> >> reason,
> > 
> > Which reason? The formal name of a release is the Release number.
> > As point releases are issued, the Release number changes; the
> > code name doesn't. When a release becomes ancient history, its
> > code name still applies to it and the all its point releases,
> > whatever numbering scheme is then in force.
> 
> Except you can't really tell from the release number whether it's a new
> release or not. Historically, sometimes a point release has been a new
> release, and other times it hasn't. AFAIK a new code name is always 1:1
> with needing to read the release notes and using dist-upgrade or whatever.
> 
> >> but that doesn't carry over into "casual" conversation like the
> >> parent thread or the repo urls etc.
> > 
> > No, for several reasons which may differ between people. In this
> > specific case, wheezy-backports packages are packaged for
> > installation on wheezy systems, but they're not part of any
> > Debian [0-9]+ release; using a Release number (which one?) would
> > carry misleading implications.
> > 
> > Another reason: it's a convention that organisations use
> > because it works. It's less ambiguous to write jessie than 8
> > especially in contexts where lots of numbers are being discussed,
> > and it's more memorable to most people. People use names,
> > computers like numbers.
> 
> I don't think the 'number' as used here is particularly more
> computer-friendly; it's still a string.

That's true, but at least they collate (with care).

> And sources.list uses names, and
> AFAIK doesn't translate to numbers before talking to the repo.

That's right. The repository is built with code names. However it
is numbered upon release, stretch is forever stretch.

> > As for stable etc, at the users' end, they're designed to give
> > a seamless path for any particular system to evolve through the
> > upgrade process.
> 
> Do they though? Is it ever recommended to let a 'stable' installation be
> upgraded to the next release without manual intervention and lots of
> care? I certainly always use codenames in sources.list, so I can control
> when the upgrade happens.

So do I. But plenty don't, as evidenced by postings here.

> > At the developers' end, they provide static
> > handles for the discussion of how packages migrate through the
> > repositories. LTS is somewhat similar.
> 
> I guess LTS is more or less a synonym for 'oldoldstable', right? A
> moving target, anyway.

It's whatever the LTS team decide they have the resources to support
at any time and is generally composed of subsets of code names
(rather than versions).
I believe the number of code names has just been reduced, excluding
foo-backports which they had tried to cover.

> > Some people always seem to remain confused. Perhaps they have
> > the same confusion with timezones, for similar reasons.
> 
> Verging on personal, but whatever.

Which person? It wasn't intended to be. It didn't touch upon
any specific confusion yet mentioned in this thread.
There's a group (for want of a better word) of people who have
thought that the versions are called stable etc, and the code
names are just nicknames that change as releases are published.
This can lead to confusion similar to timezones. Timezones
increase eastward, but noon migrates westward, and people get
called on the phone in the middle of the night.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#191022 — Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On 12-01-2018, at 15h 03'25", David Wright wrote about "Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)"
> [...] People use names, computers like numbers.
> 

I do not take sides here, but I can't accept this statement. Numbers
are universal, Debian release names are English. I do not use any of
then (numbers or names). I simply have a look in /etc/apt/sources when
I need to know what version of Debian I use at the moment, and I am
using Debian before potato... (yes, I look into my /etc/apt/sources
file to pull that name).

Did any of Debian release names were translated? I am bad with names.
Specially English ones. I find all of Debian release names stupid till
now. Culminating with perpetual Sid (no, I did not consulted
/etc/apt/sources file now).

I am extremely good with numbers. You could say that I can speak
math. Although I studied chemistry. So, coming back to the statement,
I find it extremely stupid. You could have getting away saying 
"People use WORDS, computers USE numbers." Numbers are words so nobody
is offended. 

Take care what you write.

Ionel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#191028

On Friday, January 12, 2018 11:14:37 PM Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă wrote:
> On 12-01-2018, at 15h 03'25", David Wright wrote about "Re: Frustration
> over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)"
> 
> > [...] People use names, computers like numbers.
> 
> I do not take sides here, but I can't accept this statement. Numbers
> are universal, Debian release names are English. I do not use any of
> then (numbers or names). I simply have a look in /etc/apt/sources when
> I need to know what version of Debian I use at the moment, and I am
> using Debian before potato... (yes, I look into my /etc/apt/sources
> file to pull that name).
> 
> Did any of Debian release names were translated? I am bad with names.
> Specially English ones. I find all of Debian release names stupid till
> now. Culminating with perpetual Sid (no, I did not consulted
> /etc/apt/sources file now).
> 
> I am extremely good with numbers. You could say that I can speak
> math. Although I studied chemistry. So, coming back to the statement,
> I find it extremely stupid. You could have getting away saying
> "People use WORDS, computers USE numbers." Numbers are words so nobody
> is offended.
> 

+1 (And thanks for amplifying / clarifying (and defending) the point I tried 
to make!)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#191032 — Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, January 12, 2018 11:14:37 PM Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă wrote:
> > On 12-01-2018, at 15h 03'25", David Wright wrote about "Re: Frustration
> > over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)"
> > 
> > > [...] People use names, computers like numbers.
> > 
> > I do not take sides here, but I can't accept this statement. Numbers
> > are universal, Debian release names are English. I do not use any of
> > then (numbers or names). I simply have a look in /etc/apt/sources when
> > I need to know what version of Debian I use at the moment, and I am
> > using Debian before potato... (yes, I look into my /etc/apt/sources
> > file to pull that name).
> > 
> > Did any of Debian release names were translated? I am bad with names.
> > Specially English ones. I find all of Debian release names stupid till
> > now. Culminating with perpetual Sid (no, I did not consulted
> > /etc/apt/sources file now).
> > 
> > I am extremely good with numbers. You could say that I can speak
> > math. Although I studied chemistry. So, coming back to the statement,
> > I find it extremely stupid. You could have getting away saying
> > "People use WORDS, computers USE numbers." Numbers are words so nobody
> > is offended.
> > 
> 
> +1 (And thanks for amplifying / clarifying (and defending) the point I tried 
> to make!)
> 

It is a good point, however have you considered the effect of a visual 
association along with a word and a number?  For instance, everytime I 
think of debian "stretch" i see a purple octopus.  For "buster" I see a 
yapping little dachshund weiner dog in my mind...

I never think of numbered versions, that is so win3.11ish...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#191034

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 09:07:58 AM bw wrote:
> It is a good point, however have you considered the effect of a visual
> association along with a word and a number?  For instance, everytime I
> think of debian "stretch" i see a purple octopus.  For "buster" I see a
> yapping little dachshund weiner dog in my mind...

For me, no--why should I go to that trouble, and even if I did, I'd still have 
the issue of which is the latest, so I'd have to do something like visualize 
them in some sort of sequence, e.g., a row.

> I never think of numbered versions, that is so win3.11ish...

Off hand, I can't think of any software that doesn't have numbered version at 
some level (except some one off type of stuff that never had a revision).  

Even Debian uses numbered versions--the Toy Story names are just alternate 
names for the numbered versions.

And, if as someone seemed to mention / imply (or I inferred), if (well I 
forget with way they said it)--if a Toy Story name applies to any sub-version 
of a numbered version(like wheezy meaning anything between 7.0 and 7.7 (or 
whatever the highest is), I get a lot more information from the numbers than 
from the Toy Story name.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#191038 — Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, January 13, 2018 09:07:58 AM bw wrote:
> > It is a good point, however have you considered the effect of a visual
> > association along with a word and a number?
<snip>
> 
> For me, no--why should I go to that trouble, and even if I did, I'd still have 
> the issue of which is the latest, so I'd have to do something like visualize 
> them in some sort of sequence, e.g., a row.

Well, the 'why' was just a suggestion that a visual might help with the 
brain game of remembering things that are difficult.  Also, there are 
other people in the world that have different brains, and might not care 
what is the latest, only what is 'stable' and stretch is stable, 
not '9 is stable' or '9.3 is stable' that would not sound right to me, 
but like I said I have a bad brain.


> forget with way they said it)--if a Toy Story name applies to any sub-version 
> of a numbered version(like wheezy meaning anything between 7.0 and 7.7 (or 
> whatever the highest is), I get a lot more information from the numbers than 
> from the Toy Story name.  

It's an interesting discussion, I appreciate your point of view.  I don't 
get any information from the version numbers, I just run stable, and 
stretch is stable, buster is testing, and debian has apt which takes care 
of the heavy brain work for me.

Thanks again.
bw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#191049 — Re: Frustration over Debian naming

On 13/01/18 07:24 AM, bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, January 13, 2018 09:07:58 AM bw wrote:
 >>
>>> It is a good point, however have you considered the effect of a visual
>>> association along with a word and a number?
> <snip>
>>
>> For me, no--why should I go to that trouble, and even if I did, I'd still have
>> the issue of which is the latest, so I'd have to do something like visualize
>> them in some sort of sequence, e.g., a row.
>
> Well, the 'why' was just a suggestion that a visual might help with the
> brain game of remembering things that are difficult.  Also, there are
> other people in the world that have different brains, and might not care
> what is the latest, only what is 'stable' and stretch is stable,
> not '9 is stable' or '9.3 is stable' that would not sound right to me,
> but like I said I have a bad brain.

However, someday Buster will be the stable release.  A name is always
associated the the same release number.  The one exception is "Sid", 
which is always the unstable release.  (Those of you who have seen _Toy 
Story_ will know why.)

-- 
cgibbs@surfnaked.ca (Charlie Gibbs)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#191035 — Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On 13-01-2018, at 09h 07'58", bw wrote about "Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)"
> > On Friday, January 12, 2018 11:14:37 PM Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă wrote:
> > > On 12-01-2018, at 15h 03'25", David Wright wrote about "Re: Frustration
> > > over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)"
> > > 
> > > > [...] People use names, computers like numbers.
> > > 
> > > I do not take sides here, but I can't accept this statement. Numbers
> > > are universal, Debian release names are English. I do not use any of
> > > then (numbers or names). I simply have a look in /etc/apt/sources when
> > > I need to know what version of Debian I use at the moment, and I am
> > > using Debian before potato... (yes, I look into my /etc/apt/sources
> > > file to pull that name).
> > > 
> > +1 (And thanks for amplifying / clarifying (and defending) the point I tried 
> > to make!)
> > 
> 
> It is a good point, however have you considered the effect of a visual 
> association along with a word and a number?  For instance, everytime I 
> think of debian "stretch" i see a purple octopus.  For "buster" I see a 
> yapping little dachshund weiner dog in my mind...
> 
> I never think of numbered versions, that is so win3.11ish...


As I said I do not take sides.

When I was in school I never could understood why the math teacher
insisted to draw the problem before you attempt to solve it (in
geometry class). I could solve any problem without the "mandatory"
drawings. If anything I would solve the problem then make the drawing.
(I never told any of my math teacher this.)

So, visual association is very personal. You can't make it universal.
The same with names. They are subjective. Most people feel the need
to name thinks (we are all humans), but fail to understand that it is
not universal. I tend to call my gps Gigel (reads something like
djeedgel). But I do not use this name when refer to it to other people
(except here to make my point). So yes, I accept the Debian release
codenames, but I do not use it. I check in my /etc/apt/sources.list to
see what is that. I also do not use the numbered versions. They are
not consistent. I do not know which one is Debian 8.0. I will google
for that.

# cat /etc/apt/sources.list
#
#standard
#deb http://ftp.debian.nl/debian/ stretch main non-free contrib
deb http://ftp.debian.nl/debian/ jessie main non-free contrib
deb http://ftp.debian.nl/debian/ wheezy main non-free contrib
deb http://ftp.debian.nl/debian/ squeeze main non-free contrib
deb http://ftp.debian.nl/debian/ lenny main non-free contrib
deb http://ftp.debian.nl/debian/ etch main non-free contrib
deb http://ftp.debian.nl/debian/ sarge main non-free contrib
deb http://ftp.debian.nl/debian/ woody main non-free contrib
deb http://ftp.debian.nl/debian/ potato main non-free contrib
deb http://ftp.debian.nl/debian/ slink main non-free contrib
deb http://ftp.debian.nl/debian/ hamm main non-free contrib

#security
#deb http://security.debian.org/ stretch/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ lenny/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ sarge/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ woody/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ potato/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ slink/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ hamm/updates main contrib non-free


stretch was there because I had to do a dist-downgrade (long story...)


This is my last contribution to this thread.

Best regards,
 Ionel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#191041 — Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Sat 13 Jan 2018 at 05:14:37 (+0100), Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă wrote:
> On 12-01-2018, at 15h 03'25", David Wright wrote about "Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)"
> > [...] People use names, computers like numbers.
> > 
> 
> I do not take sides here, but I can't accept this statement. Numbers
> are universal, Debian release names are English. I do not use any of
> then (numbers or names). I simply have a look in /etc/apt/sources when
> I need to know what version of Debian I use at the moment, and I am
> using Debian before potato... (yes, I look into my /etc/apt/sources
> file to pull that name).
> 
> Did any of Debian release names were translated? I am bad with names.
> Specially English ones. I find all of Debian release names stupid till
> now. Culminating with perpetual Sid (no, I did not consulted
> /etc/apt/sources file now).
> 
> I am extremely good with numbers. You could say that I can speak
> math. Although I studied chemistry. So, coming back to the statement,
> I find it extremely stupid. You could have getting away saying 
> "People use WORDS, computers USE numbers." Numbers are words so nobody
> is offended. 
> 
> Take care what you write.

I'm not sure what's going on here. Am I meant to apologise for the
fact that the Debian project was developed in an English-speaking
environment?

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#191044 — Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On 2018-01-13, David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat 13 Jan 2018 at 05:14:37 (+0100), Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă wrote:
>> On 12-01-2018, at 15h 03'25", David Wright wrote about "Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)"
>> > [...] People use names, computers like numbers.
>> > 
>> 
>> I do not take sides here, but I can't accept this statement. Numbers
>> are universal, Debian release names are English. I do not use any of
>> then (numbers or names). I simply have a look in /etc/apt/sources when
>> I need to know what version of Debian I use at the moment, and I am
>> using Debian before potato... (yes, I look into my /etc/apt/sources
>> file to pull that name).
>> 
>> Did any of Debian release names were translated? I am bad with names.
>> Specially English ones. I find all of Debian release names stupid till
>> now. Culminating with perpetual Sid (no, I did not consulted
>> /etc/apt/sources file now).
>> 
>> I am extremely good with numbers. You could say that I can speak
>> math. Although I studied chemistry. So, coming back to the statement,
>> I find it extremely stupid. You could have getting away saying 
>> "People use WORDS, computers USE numbers." Numbers are words so nobody
>> is offended. 
>> 
>> Take care what you write.
>
> I'm not sure what's going on here. Am I meant to apologise for the
> fact that the Debian project was developed in an English-speaking
> environment?

Perhaps he has meant to say you have confused names with words; the
former being specific to a language and culture, and the latter being
universal.

For instance, here a "vieux con" denotes something quite telling,
whereas elsewhere, when dealing with doddering idiots who remain
consistently in a state of unselfconscious befuddlement, you would
surely seek some other term.

> Cheers,
> David.
>
>


-- 
"Ruling a large nation is like cooking a small fish" - Lao Tzu

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web