> troy@mabooks.com wrote:
> >
> > Use of Alpha for experimental release and
> > Beta for pre-release of hopefully debugged software
> > has been in common usage for some time now.
>
> [...]
>
> > Its usually pretty obvious when one is referring to 'Alpha' the computer chip and
> > 'Alpha' the level of software, Just like when I'm referring to Linus, the software guru, and
> > Linus, the Peanuts comic strip character. When it is not I suggest using another name for
> > the chip. Somebody suggested AXP, I believe?
>
> The question is really one of who the audience is. Presumably not many of us who are familiar with the
> terminology of software development have had much trouble figuring out when 'Alpha' meant 'Alpha' and
> when it meant 'Alpha' instead. However, the Linux newbie compiling his first kernel (and already weak
> in the knees at the thought) may well not be familiar with this nomenclature --presumably coming from
> an Intel induced fog, he may not even know what an AXP is. If we want to cater to this level of
> innocence, then a simple label of 'Alpha', even given an additional 'AXP' label, is insufficient. A
> slightly wordy 'Alpha/Experimental!' in the config scripts is probably sufficient, with 'alpha' and
> 'axp' used in the source trees.
>
> Mark
>
and what if it's alpha code for the alpha? is that alpha/alpha?
do we now have to gpl the fraternity? seriously, if you want to make it
very obvious to new users, how about "axp(not intel)"...i'm assuming that
anyone compiling on an alpha knows what they're doing...and "alpha code"
for alpha code?
-Mike
-- "The best way to infringe of liberty is to create an external menace" -James Madison URL:http://www.ramapo.edu/~mnugent