On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 04:04:36AM -0400, Carl Hartung wrote: > Well, since you've asked: "openSUSE" strikes me as a pretty decent 'brand' > name in it's own right. It's a great context-neutral 'wrapper' or 'umbrella' > for the entire realm. It certainly 'rolls off the tongue' easily and is a > nice fit for both contexts, community *and* 'product'. There is also a strong > complementary 'brand recognition' factor, as well, since "open" is now > ubiquitous, hence familiar and understood. Prepending it to the original > 'SUSE' brand name, I think, makes the 'product' sound more accessible, or > 'friendly.' Maybe less daunting, too? In short, I think people are > gravitating towards using openSUSE as a 'catch-all' or 'ad hoc' label because > it really is a natural fit for both purposes.
I do not want to start a discussion about the name openSUSE. I just want to know if it is used correctly with the definition we have NOW. From what you write I can only get that it is not so, so I will change it on the wiki. Wether or not openSUSE should be a catch-all is a discussion to be helt in another thread. -- houghi http://houghi.org http://www.plainfaqs.org/linux/ http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html > > Today I went outside. My pupils have never been tinier... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
