On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 01:19:31PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > If not, why are you claiming to replace their code? It's fine to be > > writing "something else" to replace older code; but it's fairly rude to > > be claiming that whatever you're writing is the "next generation" of > > that older code > > Any rewrite will be a "next generation" of the previous thing.
Wrong. It will be a new thing, not related to the previous thing. > I don't see the harm in calling things what they actually are. It's rude. > There were probably some hurt feelings on the Star Trek staff when > Star Trek: TNG came around, but that's not sufficient justification to > stop the writers of that show from calling it what they wanted to call > it. This is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Even so: - The "next generation" in TNG is about the characters (who are a generation younger than the original series), not about the show. - The original guy who came up with the original star trek was also involved with TNG. -- Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and save on postage. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121029145342.gj24...@grep.be
