On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 01:29:14PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: > >My point is that unless the letters SUNW cause anybody serious grief, > >we should just continue with their use and just write it off to > >history should anybody question it. More names, with equivalent > >meanings, don't do us much good. > > +1 > > Further, if we go down this trend, are we going to have to start > changing all those old SUNW packages, etc. Yikes, I hope not.
I didn't see Darren suggest that old things called SUNW* be renamed, nor did I suggest it; noone suggested that. Nor do I think there's a slippery slope towards that. > Also, I find the reverse DNS naming scheme dissatisfying ... it makes > everything quite a bit longer than it really needs to be to provide the > separation of the namespace that is desired. It also ignores the bit > that not everyone who wants to participate will have a DNS domain name, > or that the domainname will not change over time. (E.g. due to mergers, > buyouts, insolvency, or rebranding.) Yes, all possible names will suck, which is the best argument for sticking to SUNW* here. Nico --
