Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 16:03:09 +0200 From: Julian Howard Stacey <Julian.H.Stacey@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com> Cc: Mark Hittinger <bugs@ns1.win.net>, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Release stability (fwd) Message-ID: <199504221403.QAA08064@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Apr 1995 09:34:55 %2B0200." <2448.798449695@freefall.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> What say the rest of you? The actual numbering mechanism (odd, even, how many digits etc) is religious, I don't care what is chosen, so long it is sequential, just don't use a random approach (eg "this one's called Chicago, next is called Johannesburg") A friend who sell software in bulk for Lotus tells me that for consumers to believe software credible, they need to see reliable availability of regular upgrade releases (though this of course doesn't mean they'll always upgrade if they have no problems outstanding) To make FreeBSD attractive to to the bosses (not just techies) who select OS's for commercial applications, being able to go into project consultancy sales presentations saying: "The International FreeBSD Group produces new releases regularly every 3 months, look at the labels, I've brought the last year's with me" would go down well (something like it has already worked for me), but "every so often" sounds a Lot less business like than "every 3 months"; still my old 1.0 & 1.1 CD cases still have at least some use :-) Pressings every 3 months would generate lots more revenue for WC Inc too, (as I've alluded to in previous mail). Julian S
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504221403.QAA08064>