Re: mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users.

2011-08-19 Thread compn
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:51:18 +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote: >On 08/19/11 05:56, compn wrote: > >> mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users. >[..] >> debian and uoti are setting themselves (and us) up for explaining to >> users which version is better. > >

Re: mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users.

2011-08-19 Thread compn
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 19:51:15 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:56:41PM -0400, compn wrote: >> mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users. > >So you think Debian should rename the package to confuse people >even more? no, i think 'icewease

Re: mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users.

2011-08-19 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:56:41PM -0400, compn wrote: > mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users. So you think Debian should rename the package to confuse people even more? Or is there some other reason you mailed this to the Debian list? I suggest you take it up with the peo

Re: mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users.

2011-08-19 Thread Reinhard Tartler
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:54:32 (CEST), Christoph Egger wrote: > Hi! > > compn writes: >> mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users. >> >> it doesnt help that debian is using that name as a package: >> http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/mplayer/news/

Re: mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users.

2011-08-19 Thread Christoph Egger
Hi! compn writes: > mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users. > > it doesnt help that debian is using that name as a package: > http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/mplayer/news/20110817T173341Z.html I don't see any mplayer2 mentioned in that link btw apart from t

Re: mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users.

2011-08-19 Thread Adrian Knoth
On 08/19/11 05:56, compn wrote: > mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users. [..] > debian and uoti are setting themselves (and us) up for explaining to > users which version is better. While this is always the problem with forks, be assured you are not alone. There are j

Re: mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users.

2011-08-18 Thread Andrew O. Shadoura
Hello, On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:39:28 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: > > maybe i'll just go create the debian2 operating system or the > > google2 search engine. brilliant! > Or you could rip off the name of a standard Windows program. Oh wait, > you already did that. Actually, both mplayer and mpl

Re: mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users.

2011-08-18 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 23:56 -0400, compn wrote: > mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users. > > it doesnt help that debian is using that name as a package: > http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/mplayer/news/20110817T173341Z.html > > debian and uoti are setting them

mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users.

2011-08-18 Thread compn
mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users. it doesnt help that debian is using that name as a package: http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/mplayer/news/20110817T173341Z.html debian and uoti are setting themselves (and us) up for explaining to users which version is better. why each