Re: slowing down point releases

[Greg Vence <gvence@ix.netcom.com>]

Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 
> On 30 Jul 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
> 
> > We should release new versions whenever they improve the OS for our
> > users.  Delaying versions to make CD distributors just hurts net
> users
> > for no reason.  Not delaying releases doesn't hurt any users.
> >
> It does if they can't get the product in their local book store.
> Because
> the store will return all books that have an out-of-date CD in them,
> there
> needs to be some shelf time for the product so that distributors have
> a
> chance to make a profit. With a 4 week order cycle at the book store,
> by
> the time the distributor can get the book on the shelves it is out of
> date
> and gets returned.
> 
A book with CD's would be a great thing.  This gives the 'show-me'
manager something to see as 'Debian'.

> If commercial ventures can't make a profit they will not deliver the
> product and our users get stuck with a less than professional product
> delivery system.
> 
I think the Internet is _more_than_professional_.  Or at least cutting
edge professional.  (Yes, bleeding edge sometimes.)  However, you'll
notice that all those 'professional' companies would like to cut the
cost of distribution too.

> I am beginning to see why Debian hasn't made it into any commercial
> venture. If we keep saying "We don't care about folks trying to make a
> living with our software." we will never be able to penetrate the
> broader
> market place represented by book stores and computer outlets.
> 
We need to be careful with this simbiotic relationship.  Since we've
convinced at least two companies to market our CD images, we should face
that we're going to be supporting some folks 'making a reasonable
profit' to sell our product through a more traditional retail channel.

Could someone speak to what a typical retail books seller's markup is? 
Also, please include the cost of the channel from "Cost of Goods" to the
retail cost.  I know that PC Tools for Windows COGS was ~$15.

It would seem reasonable to allow the channel to have the 'customary'
markups.  As in retail software, we 'make the killing' on the upgrades.
:)

> Redhat provides this market time by only delivering one release. All
> additional changes to packages is put in the Updates directory for FTP
> download. As a result the Original release CDs can be sold during the
> total time of the X.Y release, with the end user only needing to get
> on
> the net to download those packages in updates that need to be
> upgraded.
> 
This seems the better of the two.  I'd propose X.0 disks.  However,
being part of the test team, I'd rather see X.(2|3) for stability.

> Slackware manages this in a much more dishonest fashion. The X.Y
> release
> continues to get updated, but is never re-named, so that Walnut Creek
> can
> continue to market the X.Y release that they pressed, even though the
> FTP
> sites have a different product. This may be the main reason that
> Slackware
> is suffering in the market place, since the end user has no idea which
> X.Y
> version they actually got.
> 
This is not a step. We've jumped over this rung of the ladder.  We
already openly say what versions we release, even at the module level. 
The collective mind wouldn't allow for this regression. :)

Almost Finally, to appease the "I want my image free" crowd, Dale and
several others can get you the latest images for "no additional fee" on
CDR's.  We could make 'unofficial' images for those.  This would allow
our retail friends the warm fuzzy feeling they are used to with words
like "Official" (or "Ofical" :).

With having fewer CD versions out there it would be a little easier to
support knowing what would need upgrading.

Dos Centavos -- Greg.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .