|
Thomas Fletcher
|
RE: Should we change the project name?
|
|
Thomas Fletcher
09/19/2007 1:49 PM
post1415
|
RE: Should we change the project name?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Attilla Danko [mailto:ADanko@qnx.com]
> Sent: September 19, 2007 1:41 PM
> To: osmeta-core_os
> Subject: Re: Should we change the project name?
>
> >This isn't a matter for a vote;
>
> That's an interesting issue for the management of
> open-whatever projects.
>
> I believe the os project and wiki pages must be written in
> the language and vocabullary of its users: the software
> geeks. I think I have Seb's direction to persue that approach.
>
> I do agree that the project name must not be confusing. But I
> would do that by using whatever name the qnx software geek
> community actually uses. So I do believe this is a choice to
> be decided by consensus and not by corporate branding. (Sure
> we should identify the corporate brand, but as Colin says, i
> think that's a footnote.)
The problem is that there is a significant number of qnx software
geeks who still remember QNX4 and QNX2 =;-)
Personally, I call it Neutrino, plain and simple.
... but if we called it Neutrino, then we loose the people who
think that this is an atomic particle.
... so we call it QNX OS, then we confuse the people who think
that they might find some QNX4 and QNX2 stuff ... believe me,
if you write it in the intro no one will read it (as per the
build instructions =;-)
... so we call it QNX Neutrino Operating System, but then that
is too long to write we say ... QNX Neutrino OS is too succint.
I take back my +1. I like Neutrino, I don't write out the name
of the "project" very often, but I don't care enough to fight
one way or the other.
People are elastic, they will conform to whatever we ingrain
in their brains. The name has started as is, so we had might
as well leave it as is.
Now ... what we really should be talking about is a mascot!
Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
