Re: thoughts on a new name
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 03:34:24PM +0200, Holger Levsen 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.
> Maybe "Debian Remix" or "Debian (Pure) Blend". Also I think it should be
> something short, "Debian Integrated Solutions" IMO not only has the
> disadvantage that some remixes aint solutions, but also that nobody will use
> it and so we will have to explain DIS again.
> A name should speak for itself.
> Or am I the only one unhappy with DIS?
Not that I really care. But take a really bad name, such as "SOD"
(subset of Debian), and add beatify it a bit:
(LIRASOD Is Really A Subset of Debian)
Really, this name game is boring :-)
That said, I do find DIS as confusing as CDD.