>>> Linux kernel version 2.2.0 released
>>
>> The ".0" is not good. It is like "Windows NT 4.0, service pack 0".
>
> The problem is that 2.2 isn't being released. 2.2.0 is. 2.2 will last two
> years, probably.
Plain 2.2 is being released. The kernel reports as 2.2.0 just because
the ".0" makes filenames regular and eliminates special-case code.
>> With "released" in the past tense, this press release is lifeless.
>> I suggest present tense for the whole thing.
>
> Well, it has been released. You can't put everything in the present
> tense, or it sounds awkward. "Releasing Linux kernel version 2.2.0"?
> What do you suggest?
I was using this:
: Today Linus Torvalds, leader of the Linux kernel development team,
: releases a major update to the Linux operating system. The new release
: brings enterprise scalability, broad support for newer hardware, and a
: large collection of new features. Highlights include:
It sounds just fine in the present tense.
> The reason the tenses are the way they are is that
>
> (1) events, e.g., "Linux kernel released," are in the past tense
> because they did happen. They are not happening as we speak;
> they already happened.
We can and should gloss over that minor detail. The present tense is
more exciting. It gives an active feel.
>> I had to word wrap the above, because the lines got too long.
>> It would be better to stick to 72 characters.
>
> 72 isn't long enough for some of the URLs. I've changed it to 75.
Such URLs are too long. Kill them.
>> Feature check:
>>
>> - priority traffic <-- important new QoS queueing stuff
>
> I'm not familiar with this. Please suggest a fix.
Ugh. We ought to use the same terms that Cisco uses in their
press releases.
>> X usage limits
>> - firewalls <-- much more flexible now
>
> Gotcha.
OK, I see this now:
> * Advanced network routing and wide area network (WAN) support give Linux
> the ability to replace many expensive, proprietary protocol network
> devices. Users can take control of their intranets with wide support
> for a wide variety of protocols, usage limits, accounting, and virtual
> private networks. In addition, support for firewalls has been
> significantly improved in this release.
It is better. The first sentence takes too long parse. It looks like
"proprietary" modifies "protocol network devices". There is no such
thing as "protocol network devices". Simple fix: kill "protocol".
You still have "wide support for a wide" in your text.
Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers...
Support for protocols has little to do with taking control.
I just think "a wide variety of protocols," should go.
Firewall info has clearly been tacked onto the end. Firewalls need
to be in the list of features that let you control your intranet.
If you don't agree with that, at least get rid of "In addition,"
and replace "significantly improved" with a comment about how the
new code gives better control.
>> : * Strong 256-bit encryption, available as an add-on component
>> : uncompromised by US export restrictions. Linux protects both
>> : network infrastructure and hard disk storage, including swap space.
>>
>> If you want that second one as a complete sentence:
>> "Linux provides strong [...]"
>
> I have a better idea. Check my latest draft. (Website:
> http://bigred.lcs.mit.edu/~krose/linux2.2.0pr-f1.html)
That got a bit long. Maybe this:
: * Strong 256-bit encryption, uncompromised by US export restrictions,
: is available as an add-on component. It protects both network
: infrastructure and hard disk storage, including swap space.
>>> * Owing to its tradition of open and international development, Linux
>>> is positioned as an operating system ready for the new millennium.
>>> Linux 2.2 is Y2K ready and continues to build on previous versions'
>>> internationalization.
>>
>> This fits better in the BACKGROUND section.
>
> No. People want to see this as a feature. I don't know quite why,
> but I've gotten some pretty strong opinions about it.
Are you sure they want to see it _there_? It is a very bad place.
You were also vague about internationalization. Linux 2.2 has
Euro support in keymaps, in console maps, and in fonts.
>>> * The network file system support is enterprise-grade, with data
>>> replication for performance, mobility, and reliability.
>>
>> Hmmm. Try this:
>>
>> : * Linux has enterprise-level network filesystem support, with data
>> : replication for performance, mobility, and extreme reliability.
>> : File server destruction need not and should not stop business.
>>
>> I still think "complete with" is appropriate.
>
> Again, check the latest draft and tell me what you think.
I like "File server destruction" better, because RAID already protects
you from some hardware malfunctions. Coda is much more capable.
I also think it is good to avoid wording that uses so many commas
in multiple ways. You have a comma delimited list enclosed in commas.
>>> * New multimedia capabilities include video capture support, TV tuner
>>> support, and enhanced audio support.
>>
>> Except for audio, Linux had no multimedia capabilities before?
>> I suppose it is mostly true, but we shouldn't imply that it is.
>> This seems nice:
>>
>> : * Video conferencing and recording support, TV tuner support,
>> : enhanced audio support, and other exciting multimedia enhancements.
>>
>> Again, if you prefer whole sentences: "Linux 2.2 provides [...]"
>
> I like this the way it is. I have also avoided having a string
> of "Linux 2.2 provides" or "Linux 2.2 offers" prefixes.
It is good to mention "Linux" often. Perhaps you would prefer this:
: The many exciting multimedia enhancements in Linux 2.2 include
: video conferencing and recording support, TV tuner support, and
: enhanced audio support.
>>> * Linux's already legendary performance is significantly enhanced.
>>> High end symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) support scales well,
>>> supporting systems with up to 64 processors.
>>
>> Use "High-end", not "High end", but only if you insist.
>>
>> Try simple terms like "computers with multiple processors" instead of
>> complicated terms like "symmetric multiprocessing (SMP)".
>
> Business users like buzzwords. Computer with multiple processors
> can imply message passing networks, which is significantly more
> trivial than SMP support.
No, that would be multiple computers (or non-PC non-Mac hardware).
Nobody sane would make non-SMP multiprocessor support for a PC.
>> I hate "performance is significantly enhanced" for some reason.
>> It is passive voice and seems to parody the typical press release.
>
> I still like this. Passive voice is not bad for a press release.
> It adds a detachment that makes it sound less biased.
Passive voice is almost always bad. You use it when you have to
testify about what you did to a whitehouse intern.
What about the parody appearance?
>>> * Compatibility with Windows NT and Unix filesystems enables
>>> Linux 2.2 to seamlessly handle data from legacy systems.
>>> SAMBA (http://www.samba.org/) gives a Linux system the ability
>>> to provide a complete replacement for NT Server services,
>>> including file and print sharing and domain authentication.
>>
>> Ah, but no NTFS support? Not only that, but Samba is old news.
>> Samba isn't even part of the kernel. Linux supports some BSD
>> filesystems, but not many Unix filesystems. (only the old "sysv")
>
> We can't list everything in full detail. That's where the
> millenium penguin document comes in. Holy Library, Batman!
> I'm a press release, not an encyclopedia!
Yes indeed, this is a press release. Kill Samba. I read all the
kernel patches, and I assure you that Samba was not integrated
into the 2.2 kernel.
>> If you use the "Windows", you need to credit Microsoft. If you stick
>> to plain "NT", you can credit Northern Telecom Limited instead.
>
> I don't care if we credit Microsoft. We already mention the name
> "Microsoft" in the Vinod quote. I'm content with the "Microsoft
> is a registered trademark...." line.
You must add "Windows and Windows NT are..." to go with it. Eeew.
>> Don't ever use "modify". Why would anybody want to do that?
>
> I like "modify," because it both "customize" and "fix" imply it.
> One of the most important features of Linux is the ability to fix
> it if there's a problem. I don't think we should be claiming that
> Linux is perfect, because it is not. The advantage to being Free
> Software, however, is that they have the source and can fix it
> themselves if no one else does.
Are you suggesting that Linux has something that must be fixed? :-)
>>> distributed as Free Software under the terms of the GNU General Public
>>> License (http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html).
>>
>> This is getting _way_ too detailed.
>
> It's important. I (and many others) feel very strongly about the
> information contained in this paragraph. It's (IMO) the most
> important feature of Linux.
You may feel very strongly about the information, but that doesn't
mean it belongs in a Linux 2.2 press release.
>>> "Linux" is the common name for a class of secure network operating
>>> system distributions based on the Linux kernel and software from
>>> the Free Software Foundation's GNU Project. Linux takes full
>>> advantage of modern, high-end PC, Power Mac, Alpha, and UltraSPARC
>>> hardware. It can also breathe life into older machines -- even 386-
>>> and 486-based computers. Networks of Linux computers can provide
>>> supercomputer-like performance for some applications; one
>>> widely-known example is the dramatic 3-D scenes in the blockbuster
>>> movie "Titanic", which were rendered on Alpha-powered Linux systems.
>>
>> Simplify! Kill "distributions" (what are they?),
>
> We don't necessarily want to imply that SuSE is a different operating
> system than RedHat, so I don't want to say "operating systems" without
> distribution.
You can just ignore SuSE, Red Hat, and all the rest.
Simplify: "Linux is a secure network operating system"
>> GNU (not fair),
>
> Of course it is fair. This paragraph is meant to clarify one of the
> biggest misconceptions about Linux.
**ahem**
I write free software. I use the GPL, but I keep the copyright.
There is nothing "GNU" about my stuff except for the license.
Don't you dare lump my code in with the GNU project.
You have also left out some really huge contributers, such as
the X consortium and the University of California.
Out of 64 processes running on my system now (about 40 unique),
only bash is GNU software. This is normal Red Hat stuff.
I'm actually running more GNU junk on Digital Unix right now.
You could get sued over "GNU/Digital Unix" too.
>> the Alpha and UltraSPARC (huh?),
>
> Why should I kill this? It's important that users know that they
> can run it on their hardware.
Now you have to explain what an UltraSPARC is and why someone
should care about UltraSPARC support. This press release is too
long now. It is time to chainsaw this document, and you might as
well start here.
>> the 386 (long gone),
>
> Not where I worked...
...but not where you work.
I'm at a poorly funded public university. The 386 hardware was
removed about 2.5 years ago, and wasn't being used much then.
In 1995 I worked at a place with 250 people, many of which were
normal office workers. They had very few 386 machines left.
The 386 was introduced in 1985. Computer hardware doesn't usually
last for 14 years.
Yeah, some people are using hardware that is over a decade old.
Some people still have an Apple II and some people run DOS 3.3.
>> and "Titanic" (getting old).
>
> Not everyone knows this, and so many people saw and loved the movie
> that they will find it interesting that Linux helped in making it.
> I didn't like Titanic, but I appreciate the technology.
>> Stick to the goal. This document has "designed by committee" all over it.
>> Oh, so it was designed by committee... Try to hide that!
>
> Who cares who designed it? We are trying to satisfy a lot of people
> with this very small document, so it makes sense that we can't please
> everyone. Eventually, we're just going to have to go with something,
> but we can keep making it better until then.
Nobody should care who designed the document, but the results matter.
The results: everybody's pet feature is listed.
>> You forgot IRC,
>
> Yeah, where the hAx0rZ hang. I know EFNET has a lot of good support
> groups, but IRC has such a bad rep that we don't want to bother.
>
>> "Ask Slashdot",
>
> I love Slashdot, but the best way to put a prospective Linux newbie
> off is for them to visit that site. There are so many complete and
> utter trolls there that 90% of the posts are useless. I'd rather
> they visit these sites on their own, so we aren't implying that this
> is the best support available.
I agree. Don't mention them - but don't mention any other particular
means of Internet support either. Leave the reference general.
> Mailing lists and USENET are still the best resources for
> Linux help, IMO.
Yes - but you need a general term that covers both.
>> The term "Usenet" is kind of dead. Many people know mailing lists as
>> "email groups". It is better to be vague: "cost-effective Internet groups".
>
> "Cost-effective"? ugh... no thanks. I took that out for a reason.
Put it back in for a reason: normal OS support is costly.
Linux support on the Internet is cheap because everybody
can learn about the system internals. Support costs matter.
This is an important Linux feature, and you only need 15
characters to express it.
> I think most people know what a mailing list is, and virtually
> everyone has interacted with usenet at one point or another.
Sure, but most people use different names. Your "usenet" is
"news groups" to me, but "discussion groups" or "boards" to
someone else. I'd guess "news groups" is the most common term,
but I wouldn't want to assume that it is.
> What is an "Internet group"? I can't in good faith put that in
> there, because if I saw it, it would confuse me.
Take a guess and you will be right. That is the beauty of it;
you can get support in the form that you might expect.
If you have some other general term, feel free to substitute.
Example:
: Both traditional support contracts and cost-effective Internet
: support resources are widely available.
>>> due to its open source code - has a long term credibility which exceeds
>>> many other competitive operating systems."
>>
>> We can't use "UNIX" here. We can't use it anywhere at all.
>> Only reporters may use the term without prior authorization,
>> and they still have to be careful about proper use.
>
> We can't even if we list the trademark? Doesn't this come under fair use?
http://www.UNIX-systems.org/trademark.html
>> That list has got to go. It is growing without bounds. It is full of
>> sites that aren't really suitable. The list will never be fair.
>> It looks totally "designed by committee". It must die, die, die!!!
>
> People can look at the "General" sites if they want, but more
> specific information is available if they need it. News people
> will just tear this apart, anyway.
Important URLs get lost in that huge collection. It also looks
like you endorse particular distributions and projects.
Worse yet, YOU ARE BEING TOTALLY POLITICAL about this. You have
excluded www.linux.org, which happens to be a very good site.
More than any other site, www.linux.org has earned a place.
You should not be doing a press release if you can't keep your
political views out of it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/