> sync - HotSync(TM) technology
'HotSync(r) technology', per the trademark page
> PDA - Palm(TM) handheld
'Palm[tm] handheld device' (again, per the trademark page)
Both ugly in any way you phrase them. We're not just supporting
Palm[tm] handheld devices here. So far, the devices supported are: Palm,
Handera, TRG, Handspring, Kyocera, Qualcomm, Symbol. Palm is only 1/7th of the
market we're supporting with pilot-link.
> "The HotSync(TM) [THUMP] technology [THUMP] in your Palm(TM) [THUMP]
> handheld is useful," as opposed to "The sync function of your PDA is
> useful."
>
> Any thoughts?
I'm in favor of replacing all the references in the visible
documentation and manpages and sprintf's/etc. to "Pilot" and not "Palm" and
not "Palm Pilot" (<- or can we use this one now?), since that clearly removes
us from Palm actually pointing at us in any way (though it puts us in the path
of Pilot Pen/Pilot Corporation of America, but I doubt they're going to go
suing us anytime soon).
I just went to CompUSA today and picked up a Pilot (pen) dual-stylus
and pen combo. Nice and fat at the bottom, no reference to either PDA, Pilot,
Palm, handheld, or anything at all on the package -- NOTHING. Weird.
Anyway, if we're going to use Palm, we should adhere to what they
require on their page. Remember, we're already "In Violation(tm)" of that by
calling pilot-link by it's name.
"Palm[tm]-handheld-device-link"?
"/dev/Palm[tm]"?
I don't think so =) If we're going to nuke the Palm trademarks in
full, we should come up with a ubiquitous name, such as Pilot, to use instead.
PDA is too broad, and Palm is too narrow.
Brainstorm anyone?
/d
_______________________________________________
Pilot-unix mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hcirisc.cs.binghamton.edu/mailman/listinfo/pilot-unix
