Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> [I am not subscribed to debian -bsd.]
>
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 08:30:48PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Nathan Hawkins <utsl@quic.net> writes:
>> > I'm not opposed to anything else you've said. I do believe these
>> > particular names are a bad idea, however. One of the reasons the BSD
>> > mascot is considered "cute" is that it has no real connection with
>> > demons, in name, or otherwise. Which to people of several religions are
>> > _not_ cute.
>>
>> Thanks for raising this point. I'm very interested in the Debian
>> GNU/*BSD efforts, but if named as such I would never consider using
>> them (the BSD daemon is, to my mind, only borderline acceptable as it
>> is).
>
> What would be unacceptable about it, and why is it only a "borderline"
> case? What would push it over the borderline?
Demons are evil, and the BSD mascot is a demon (albeit a stylised
one). On the other hand, it's not /intended/ to be evil. In this
particular case, my personal thought on this is that the intent
outweighs the fact that it's a demon (come on, the BSD daemon on the
front of my FreeBSD Services box is holding a spanner and wearing
trainers--that's not exactly evil, is it?).
>> I don't have any good ideas as or an alternative right now--it's worse
>> than a tiebreaker!
>
> This is revealing.
If you say so...
> The fundamentalist mind is much more practiced at identifying what
> it's opposed to, than at identifying what it supports.
Err, I disagree with choosing a name of evil meaning, but haven't got
a (good) alternative readily to hand, so suddenly I'm a
"fundamentalist"?! That's quite amusing.
--
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
Reply to: