[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: names

> > I can see where you're coming from, however the term "Daemon" is in the
> > same boat and I don't think (many) people object to that.
> Not really, because not as many people are acculturated to use respectful
> language about daemons as about the deity. Anyway, most of them are
> referred to as "servers" these days, really only a few things like cron
> are daemons.

I have to agree with Behan on this.  While the differences between "daemon"
and "demon" are dubious, most people think "daemon" as a guardian spirit
and "demon" to be an evil spirit.  It's a word in very common use among
sysadmins despite this.

> I worked with an operator who would never chmod a file to 666 because
> it was the number of the beast, and a systems programmer who would not
> allow a user to have the login name "godzilla" because it contained
> the sub-string "god". This was on Long Island, not the deep south.
> There are enough people like this that marketing should consider them.

Hmmm...  There are probably people who don't like the utility "lint" because
they think the bellybutton is a private part, too.  <grin>

I don't mean to sound disrepectful to the beliefs of those people, but I
don't think it's possible to pick a name that _nobody_ objects to.  Carl
Segan filed a law suit against apple for using his name as an internal
project name (something most people would consider an honor, I think).

                                 ( bcwhite@verisim.com )

 Generated by Signify v1.03.  For this and more, visit http://www.verisim.com/

Reply to: