<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/20/2014 02:25 PM, Trevor Hemsley
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53A41A3E.90900@ntlworld.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 20/06/14 12:15, Johnny Hughes wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> You think it is much easier
to explain a data breach costing your client<br>
> in the field millions dollars because someone THOUGHT they
had 7.1 EUS<br>
> and all its security updates, just like RHEL has, when the
tree is at<br>
> 7.3? We need to prevent people from thinking is OK to stay
on an old<br>
> tree, it absolutely is not.</span><br>
The people who don't stay up to date are the ones who have never
heard of EUS and wouldn't know what it was if it bit them. They
don't stay up to date because they don't even know they should and
adding an incomprehensible date format to the release number won't
make them do so either. The addition of the motd telling you how
many updates are pending would do far more to address this than a
random change to something that doesn't need changing.<br>
<br>
It just adds confusion to the mix.<br>
<br>
T</blockquote>
+1 on both aspects. telling how many updates are pending would be
more useful by far than changing the naming scheme.<br>
</body>
</html>