On Wednesday, October 29, 2003 at 12:31:21 PM,

    Clifford Wolf <> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:

> > When I made thoughts about it, I came to the conclusion that ROCK Linux
> > may survice, but it should be decapsulated from a "Distribution Build
> > Kit" (so in our terminology it should be a distribution target).
>
> The distribution target would be "dROCK".
>
> > Well, I'd speak for just name it Distribution Build Kit. Or, when this
> > makes trouble with things like rock-consulting et al, put a ROCK
> > before it. (Though I don't think a rock is a very good metapher for a
> > DBK. :-P)
>
> But DBK or Distribution Build Kit is not a name. That would be like naming
> a project like the Linux Kernel "POSIX conforming operating system
> kernel". It is a description - not a name.

So? Let's have a look at the software world, and let's discover how
many things are named there: I can see four major way to give names
to things.

1._Descriptive_ names:

  Either via acronyms like:

    UNIX from UNICS: Uniplexed Information and Computing System
    LISP           : LISt Processing
    EMACS          : Editor MACroS
    VI             : VIsual (Editor)
    VIM            : Vi IMproved
    KDE            : Kool Desktop Environment (that's actually a pun on:)
    CDE            : Common Desktop Environment
    GIMP           : Graphical Image Manipulating Programm
    MOZILLA        : MOSAIC Killer (actually, Mozilla is also the name of
                     that cute tyrannosauros rex.)
    ALSA           : Advanced Linux Sound Architecture
    ...

  Or via descriptive short names (may be mixed with acronyms) like:

    GNU binutils, GNU coreutils, GNU fileutils, diffutils, diffstat,
    dietlibc, fetchmail, sendmail, readline, xchat, ...

2. Continuations:

  Mostly to indicate a certain progress:

    C (successor of B, or second character of BCPL)
    Y (may become a successor of X)
    ...

3. Persons' name:

  Like:

    Linux, ReiserFS, AWK, ...

4. Imaginary or methaphoric name:

  Like:

    Python, Ruby, Anjuta IDE, Gentoo, Redhat, ..., ROCK Linux

> [IMO] A name should be short enought to be used as one single word, should be
> abstract enought be a unique name instead a formal description and should
> sound good.

IMO, a name should be descriptive. A singe world can be created by using
an acronym. Its uniqueness is generally way broader, just because it's
_specific_ (so the possibility for potential clatches are smaller).

I can understand that you think "Distribution Build Kit? Hrm, that's *too*
general", but then let's call it "ROCK Distribution Build Kit" like "GNU
fileutils". That's I'd also call the target "ROCK Linux" in opposition
to future "ROCK BSD" and "ROCK Hurd".

Anyway, just my opinion. Let's see what the other think about it. :-)


-- tcr () ``Ho chresim'eidos uch ho poll'eidos sophos''

-- 
To unsubscribe from this list: send a mail with the subject "unsubscribe
rock-linux" to <>. For more information about ROCK
Linux have a look at <https://www.rocklinux.org/>.