>From: Philip Hazel <ph10@???>
>On Thu, 23 May 1996, Ian Kluft wrote:
>I deliberately didn't want to use the same name, in order to avoid
>confusion.
I hope we can convince you otherwise. But I realize the decision rests in
your hands since you did the bulk of the work.
>> After all, none of the previous major releases of Smail had any significant
>> relation to each other either.
>
>... which (IMHO) caused confusion! I came in at Smail 3, but even so got
>a bit confused when Smail 2 got mentioned on the net. I think Smail 3
>has spread wider than Smail 2, so (again IMHO) there is much more scope
>for confusion this time.
I think the Net can differentiate between systems with different numbers.
I won't contest that some confusion is possible considering the caliber of
today's newbies. But it's nothing a FAQ can't handle.
>> At least in this case there is a big overlap in the participants.
>Yes, but I'm seeing new interest, particularly here in the UK where
>people want to move away from PP.
I suppose if not for that, it could have been 100% overlap. "Big overlap"
would still be accurate if you take the rest of the world into account.
I realize this may not be an easy decision based on what you said about
your previous line of thinking. If you need extra time to consider it, I
certainly won't push you for an instant decision.
--
Ian Kluft KO6YQ PP-ASEL http://www.kluft.com/~ikluft/ sbay.org coordinator
ikluft@??? (home) ikluft@??? (work) San Jose, CA
