On 4/27/06, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <quote who="Steve Frécinaux"> > > > You missed the point. As someone said previously, IBM is 3 letters long. > > GNOME/Gnome is 5. But beside the case thing, is the acronym really still > > relevant ?
It never really was. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-doc-list/2000-October/msg00019.html > Not wildly - but our current use of the brand is *very* relevant, and it > keeps at least some of the association with garden gnomes out of the way. If that were so important, then I believe the choice of 'GNOME' for the project name would have been an utter failure. ;-) Besides, until I can see proof otherwise, I think GNOME was merely a backronym and that therefore the connection was intentional. Miguel? :-) > We would have to actively change the brand for 'Gnome' to be correct, so I > find it very disappointing that some people within the project are actively > muddying the waters on this issue. (Not Alan - he's just being noisy.) Nah, I was just being noisy too. But I find it really odd that you'd call it muddying the waters. As if the waters were ever clear... http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-doc-list/2000-January/msg00039.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-doc-list/2000-October/msg00019.html But, I'm kind of bored of the topic now, and I fully intend to just wait for Miguel or someone else to try to push for renaming (again[1]?). I'm not going to bother; I'll just make sure to spell it correctly myself (unless I ever have to do anything official) and mostly ignore it when others spell it WRONG. ;-) Cheers, Elijah [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2004-November/msg00057.html, see answer to question 8. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
