New Infomagic - Debian 1.0 only(!!!)
Rick Stiphout
it today, largely so that I would have the complete stable 0.93 Debian
package trees.
Turns out my CD only has the 1.0 binary/source trees!!
Either the folks who compiled this Infomagic set have no idea as to the
status of the working version of Debian (0.93!!), or this is a
not-so-subtle way of sabotaging Debian. I can only imagine the number of
folks that will try out debian from the Infomagic series, assuming
1.0 is the working release version, only to find out it is still quite
unstable in several areas.
Please, someone tell me I was unlucky and obtained one of a very small
series of initial faulty November Infomagic CD's; otherwise this could be
a major setback for Debian.
I have been quite satisfied with Infomagic's Linux products over the past
year - this does diminish my confidence in them...
Rick Stiphout
Matthew Bailey
>
> Please, someone tell me I was unlucky and obtained one of a very small
> series of initial faulty November Infomagic CD's; otherwise this could be
> a major setback for Debian.
It was an honest mistake on their part. Infact you can almost blame it on
debian for making a BIG mistake by placing debian-1.0 tree inside of the
public directory. Most archives including infomagic saw that there was a
new tree aka. debian-1.0 that they just mirrored and thought that they
had a winning system. But to their demise they are selling a distribution
that doesn't work. Infomagic has been told about this problem already,
but there is nothing they can really do about it, they had already
manufactured and shipped the product.
All you can hope for is that this will never happen again.
Maybe a nice level headed complaint to infomagic will prompt them into
makeing a 6th disk to supplement their mistake.
--
Matthew S. Bailey
107 Emmons Hall
Central Michigan University
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858
... Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer,
my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. Any
resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic.
The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold
them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the
existence of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god
coefficient. (A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism
is beyond the scope of this article.)
Godfrey Lam
Informagic CDROM set and it turns out to have Debian 1.0 only, I check
with the "ls -lr" file and cannot find 0.93R6 either. I also think that
it would be better if they pick 0.93R6 rather 1.0 ELF in this release.
Godfrey Lam
On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Rick Stiphout wrote:
...
>
> Please, someone tell me I was unlucky and obtained one of a very small
> series of initial faulty November Infomagic CD's; otherwise this could be
> a major setback for Debian.
>
> I have been quite satisfied with Infomagic's Linux products over the past
Carl Greco
>
> Please, someone tell me I was unlucky and obtained one of a very small
> series of initial faulty November Infomagic CD's; otherwise this could be
> a major setback for Debian.
>
distribution including the *version* and *date* information. This could
be done without endorsing an particular distributor and would provide
a very useful service for Debian users, especially new users.
--
======================================================
Carl Greco PHONE voice: (402) 496-3381
cgr...@Novia.Net
======================================================
Bruce Perens
They picked up the early development 1.0 on November 18. They didn't
talk to us about it. Obviously, it's not the "real" 1.0 . They meant
well. We are attempting to get them to sign of on an announcement to be
made to linux-announce so that we can make it jointly. This is the
draft text:
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
This announcement is being made jointly by Infomagic and the
Debian Project. Unfortunately, the data placed on the
"InfoMagic Linux Developer's Resource 5-CD Set November 1995"
as "Debian 1.0" is _not_ the Debian 1.0 release, but an early
development version which is only partially in the ELF
format, will probably not boot or run correctly, and does not
represent the quality of a released Debian system. To prevent
confusion between the premature CD version and the actual
Debian release, the Debian Project has renamed its next
release to "Debian 1.1". The premature Debian 1.0 on CD is
deprecated and should not be used.
The Debian Project continues to develop its 1.1 release.
Meanwhile, they suggest users install only the stable Debian
0.93R6 release, which is available at ftp.debian.org and its
mirror sites. Since Debian supports in-place upgrades to
later versions, an installed Debian 0.93R6 system may be
upgraded to Debian 1.1 without any need to wipe out the older
system.
InfoMagic and the Debian Project apologize for this mistake.
Closer communication between our two groups will prevent this
from happening again.
--
Visit the "Toy Story" Web Page! http://www.toystory.com
Rick Stiphout
point. I endorse it. Excellent idea.
Rick Stiphout
Richard Tietjen
Bill> "BP" == Bruce Perens <br...@Pixar.com> writes:
BP> ... To prevent confusion between the premature CD version and
BP> the actual Debian release, the Debian Project has renamed its
BP> next release to "Debian 1.1". The premature Debian 1.0 on CD
BP> is deprecated and should not be used.
Bill> Don't you mean the Debian Project has renamed its
Bill> *forthcoming* release to "Debian 1.1"?
Bill> Or is "Debian 1.1" now the current release?
Bill> Face it. This was an opportunity to name "Debian 1.0"
Bill> what it should have been named in the first place, namely,
Bill> "Debian-BETA"!
Bill> What are you going to do if someone comes along and
Bill> presses 50,000 CDROM copies of Debian 1.1 next week?
Bill> Bill
I agree with Bill. Naming the ELF-beta as 1.0 (or 1.1) has and will
inevitably confuse, disappoint, and alienate many people who would
otherwise have become happy Debian users. What could be the
rationale? Premature optimism?
Bruce Perens
for now. I'll let Ian Murdock decide for the long term what to name
things.
Thanks
Bruce
--
Bruce Perens <Br...@Pixar.com> Pixar Animation Studios