Re: thoughts on a new name
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Holger Levsen <email@example.com> wrote:
> it occured to me yesterday, that I think that this topic is still open and
> that the cause might be very simple: the reason why a new name doesnt catch
> up (IMHO it doesnt) is that it's confusing/not needed/immediatly clear why
> it's needed.
> AIUI we want to name a variant of Debian, right? So, no modified/additional
> sources or binaries? (Just a different presentation...) IMO that _is_ Debian.
> So there is no need for a new name ;-)
> Surely, to be able to point out the difference, some name needs to be found.
> But I (now) think, the name should be some "random" three letter acronym, but
> something that clearly emphasizes it's Debian.
Do we need to point out the difference when there isn't any? The shed
shall be named Debian!
If we do, I like Debian subprojects or Debian special interest groups,
or maybe Debian slices.
> Or am I the only one unhappy with DIS?