[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should the website still say that GRUB 2 is currently under developm
Re: Should the website still say that GRUB 2 is currently under development?
Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:28:18 +0200
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 03:25:26PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 31.07.2009, 18:19 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:45:35AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:05 +0200, adrian15 wrote:
> > > > Felix Zielcke escribió:
> > > > > I think the currently under development part can be now removed.
> > > > > Or would it be better to wait for the 1.97 release? (which hopefully
> > > > > comes before December)
> > > > That would be nice because Debian freezes at December.
> > >
> > > I don't see anything wrong with being "under development". I hope that
> > > GRUB 2 will be under development even after the 1.97. I don't see how
> > > Debian can have any problem with that.
> > It depends. If we say GRUB 2 is "under development" but we don't say
> > anything
> > about GRUB Legacy, people might think GRUB 2 is not ready.
> > I agree with Pavel, saying GRUB 2 is under development doesn't fail to the
> > truth, but then again there are many ways of saying the truth. I think we
> > should make the website give a clear message that:
> > a) GRUB Legacy is obsolete and we don't longer support it
> > b) GRUB 2 is more mature than GRUB Legacy
> Good idea. I just think that I'm not good at proposing a good wording
> for it.
> And maybe we should wait untill 1.97 gets released before telling grub2
> is more mature then grub-legacy.
Agreed. We don't want to lead anyone into using 1.96.
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."