[nSLUG] Jigdo File
dteed at artistic.ca
Wed Mar 5 17:36:10 AST 2003
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Ryan Golbeck wrote:
> Commercial software (and Free Software) have both been out a long time,
> and neither of them have established traditions for what version numbers
> mean. Some companies seem to just suddely release software 4 versions
> ahead of their last release and some name them by year. Neither of the
> conventions tells you how useful the software is, only the order in
> which it has been released.
There are no traditions? So I can release a 3.0 followed by a 1.0?
My point is that my idea of what a version number is below 1.0
isn't something that is a privately held concept. It is a widely
known concept in the software industry. I've worked in the industry
for years and that is where I came to know this, not from Debian
or freshmeat experiences.
> Why isn't in a pracictal expectation? Some software is useful and buggy
> and the best way to fix that may be to release it so that people can
> help you out and give feedback. Are you arguing that that shouldn't be
> done? Or the author should not call it useful?
If the software offered is only going to be useful, and never
dependable, I will move onto something else. Those are the
demands placed on the situation by business. If Debian can't
handle it, we can always try Aurora, BSD, etc. So far it
is more than merely useful, so I hope that remains.
> > If Debian developers are concerned with adoption in business
> > contexts, these points should matter to people like you.
> I don't think this is a primary concern for most of us. Our social
> contract says that we are just trying to make the best operating system,
> for our users, as we can. And we each do that in our own way.
Too bad if it really is that narrow in scope. Perhaps Debian
is more of a hobbyist system. Or perhaps it is completely political
like drinking fair trade coffee. In this case it might be more
important to people to be able to say they have it, than to
actually deploy it to do work. I don't know - that is just
speculation on my part given that I seem to be politically
incorrect in saying anything in Debian isn't great (which
I have done regarding Redhat without getting into a long discussion).
Anyway Debian on sparc is working well for me right now and
I'm learning how to configure things, control services and such.
> My network installations usually cost me about 300 meg of bandwidth.
> That is half the size of one ISO. In the end the same number of bytes
> are not needed, because when you download full ISOs, you are downloading
> things you will not use.
Sure, but there is no network in some places. I can reuse one set of
CDs on several machines. And in this case, I nearly needed
the full media as my only install option.
> > I am running jigdo in the background at this moment and it seems
> > to be better behaved with another mirror. Sunsite at Ualberta
> > must have a botched server or something. I thought I
> > tried other servers when I experienced the failure before but
> > it has been awhile now.
> Perhaps it was the choice of servers that caused the originally failure.
Ya, I guess I screwed up, thinking that mirror would work.
More information about the nSLUG