Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [I am not subscribed to debian -bsd.] > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 08:30:48PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: >> Nathan Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.