On Wednesday 10 July 2002 10:19 pm, Curt Sampson wrote:
> You know, I just bought this up as an idea to be batted around. And I,
> for one, am still not sure whether changing the name is a good idea or
> not.
A name change will be traumatic for a number of reasons.
First, every distributor of the progam will have to change its name. Apache
is doing this very thing now, and it has got things in a state of confusion
-- the apache webserver is now packaged in a a tarball called 'httpd' --
which, IMNSHO, is arrogant.
Next, name changes must be effectively communicated to people. If we are
having a hard time communicating our current name, how much harder of a time
will we have with communicating the fact that 'we've changed our name because
we've given up on communicating our name to people'?
Apply Occam's Razor, please. Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter
necessitatem.
It is up to the ones who want to change the name to come up with a compelling
reason to change it -- it's not the responsibility of those who support the
current name to defend the current name in order for it to be kept.
My opinion is simply that the current name is fine. The question becomes 'is
it worth the work to change the name for the minority's convenience?' I
believe the logical answer is 'No. While there are seemingly good reasons
for this move, none compel this drastic of an action.'
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11