Ian Lynch wrote:
Nah, I don't like the .org at all. And I don't think it conveys "open
souce" in the slightest.
In the slightest? How slight is slight? More internet related and that
its an organisation/community that communicates over the internet than
specifically open source perhaps.
No, I don't get that message at all from a .org, I think it's just
ackward. And if I did get that message, I still wouldn't get "open
source" from that.
There is no connection between a .org extension and an
open source project.
There is some connection in that most communities use .org extensions.
I've seen .org be detrimental more often than I've seen it be helpful.
And going from "organization" to "open source" is a pretty big jump. I
don't think anyone you try selling OOo to will make that connectin.
The uneducated masses just accept words that become familiar to them.
There is a tl east some marketing advantage in getting a debate going
about .org because it keeps people talking about the product.
I don't think that RMS ranting about saying GNU/Linux instead of Linux
has helped market Linux. I don't think that telling people who know
about OOo to call it .org helps market the product. I do think that
having a more ackward name makes it harder to remember and more tempting
to dismiss. I have not yet seen the .org be used for marketing purposes.
If we had a vote for a name change, I'd vote in favour of dropping the .org
I don't think it matters much at all but having a tag to make soemthing
more memorable is not really a disadvantage.
I think it makes it less memorable and more ackward, and those are
disadvantages.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org
/\/_/
\/_/ I am not over-weight, I am under-tall.
/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
