3 ms·

What a horrible title. Docker isn't being renamed to Moby, but rather all of the open source components are being spun out into a new umbrella OSS org called M

by nikcub 10y ago

What a horrible title. Docker isn't being renamed to Moby, but rather all of the open source components are being spun out into a new umbrella OSS org called Moby. No need to s/docker/moby anywhere. This is going to end up being a case study in how not to make announcements, because the news is otherwise big/interesting.

rc_kas 10y ago
Your comment is the only one in this whole thread that anyone needs to read.
- kordless 10y ago
  Yup, and your's as well, by extension. I'd add that the rebrand needed to happen, given naming a company and a product the same thing is never a good idea.
  - sampwing 10y ago
    Except the company and product still have the same name, it is just the open source project's name which is changing.
    - kordless 10y ago
      I suppose at this point we should ask ourselves why everyone keeps repeating the same thing over and over again. That's irrationality defined. You appear to be disagreeing with something I said, so I have to assume it's based on the assertion that naming a company AND product the same thing is usually a bad idea, at least for marketing purposes. The confusion that has arisen with other products in the past is real, and it's clear that people are confused with this move. That's why I said it. I didn't say it to be completely precise about what happened, because people aren't precise in understanding how companies market to them. It's a common mistake in marketing, of which I am moderately skilled, or so I hear. Anyway, I would say, in general terms, that reality is perceived differently from person to person. This means that some may conceptually map a concept to a word in a completely different way than another. That some are confused about this particular change in mapping is a good indication that my recommendation is a sound one, where the product, company, project and repo should be called different things to avoid branding confusion[1] when the consumer is making a decision. I would also add that this behavior of companies "being confused" in return to people's confusion resulting from a change in branding of something is also an indication of irrationality. And, it's also blaming in tone to assume people should "just get it" when these things are executed on poorly, at least marketing-wise. [1] https://hbr.org/2002/03/brand-confusion https://hbr.org/2002/03/brand-confusion
grey-area 10y ago
This url is redirecting so that has changed (a rather important url): https://github.com/docker/docker https://github.com/docker/docker This all seems so unnecessary. Why didn't they just keep docker docker and have docker-xxx for whatever other brands they want to introduce? Reminds me of CoreOS rebranding as Container Linux.
- prashnts 10y ago
  > Why didn't they just keep docker docker They'd lose 40k+ GitHub stars, I guess.

by nikcub 10y ago

rc_kas 10y ago

Your comment is the only one in this whole thread that anyone needs to read.

kordless 10y ago
Yup, and your's as well, by extension. I'd add that the rebrand needed to happen, given naming a company and a product the same thing is never a good idea.
- sampwing 10y ago
  Except the company and product still have the same name, it is just the open source project's name which is changing.
  - kordless 10y ago
    I suppose at this point we should ask ourselves why everyone keeps repeating the same thing over and over again. That's irrationality defined. You appear to be disagreeing with something I said, so I have to assume it's based on the assertion that naming a company AND product the same thing is usually a bad idea, at least for marketing purposes. The confusion that has arisen with other products in the past is real, and it's clear that people are confused with this move. That's why I said it. I didn't say it to be completely precise about what happened, because people aren't precise in understanding how companies market to them. It's a common mistake in marketing, of which I am moderately skilled, or so I hear. Anyway, I would say, in general terms, that reality is perceived differently from person to person. This means that some may conceptually map a concept to a word in a completely different way than another. That some are confused about this particular change in mapping is a good indication that my recommendation is a sound one, where the product, company, project and repo should be called different things to avoid branding confusion[1] when the consumer is making a decision. I would also add that this behavior of companies "being confused" in return to people's confusion resulting from a change in branding of something is also an indication of irrationality. And, it's also blaming in tone to assume people should "just get it" when these things are executed on poorly, at least marketing-wise. [1] https://hbr.org/2002/03/brand-confusion https://hbr.org/2002/03/brand-confusion

grey-area 10y ago

This url is redirecting so that has changed (a rather important url): https://github.com/docker/docker https://github.com/docker/docker This all seems so unnecessary. Why didn't they just keep docker docker and have docker-xxx for whatever other brands they want to introduce? Reminds me of CoreOS rebranding as Container Linux.

prashnts 10y ago
> Why didn't they just keep docker docker They'd lose 40k+ GitHub stars, I guess.