On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 03:34:24PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > 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 (LIRASOD Is Really A Subset of Debian) Really, this name game is boring :-) That said, I do find DIS as confusing as CDD. -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755 jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +972-50-7952406 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xorcom.com iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]