You know, I'm of the hunch that this sort of thing has been discussed before - as a new user, I agree with the sentiment of this thread, but I don't want to bring up old topics (if this is indeed an old topic).
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:27 AM, David Sorkovsky <[email protected] > wrote: > > Hi Alexander, > > While I understand your comment, I must say that there is a lot more out > there than your (a) & (b) and (no disrespect intended) the awesome wiki is > not so awesome :-( > > I have spent MANY hours searching for other snippets of information and > they > are what allowed me to get through the initial getting started barrier. I'm > sure that many people try Awesome but end up stumbling and move on - their > loss, but our loss as well as we lose some potentially good contributors! > > Anyway - It was just throwing out my 2c to see what people thought > > > PS: I don't think that adding WM to the "official" name and not actually > changing the code would be a pretty reasonable idea. > > > > Regards > > David > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexander Yakushev [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2012 4:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Awesome - The name! > > Hello, David, > > I understand what you are talking about. I also have a frustration googling > awesome. But the thing is there is no much data on awesome around the web > except: > a) awesome wiki > b) this mailgroup > > So changing the name so the googling of a dozen of pages becomes easier > seems too radical to me. This issue was to be thought in the first place, > not after five years passed. > > Regards, > Alexander > > -- > To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected]. > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected]. >
