On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Brendan <mailingl...@endosquid.com> wrote:
>> All the above comprise a significant factor in why forks are regarded,
>> at best, as a necessary evil. All forks dilute branding, which
>> introduces user confusion and repels potential users.
> I think it's incorrect to say it repels potential users and leave it at that.
> It will also just as likely ATTRACT new users who were put off by the lame
> name.

That's speculative. We know from past software history that what I
described actually happens.
(I'm not opposed to a rebranding. I just think that it would need to
be done a) really thoroughly and carefully, b) in cooperation with
GIMP developers, and c) released with very calculated timing. And also
that such a rebranding is very far from trivial to achieve.)

> Call it the Gnu IMP.

This has to be facetiousness, doesn't it?
In what parallel universe do you live in, that people will not
simplify 'Gnu IMP' down to 'gIMP'/'GIMP'?
For that matter, how is 'GIMP' (which may be considered offensive by
people who've seen Pulp Fiction, or
by disabled people) better than gIMP (which may be considered
offensive by religious nutcases)? It seems to me that there are far
more people in the latter category.
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to