4 ms·
You'd never get to the end state you describe if people are uncomfortable recommending the software because of the name. Word-of-mouth fails when the literal w
by trombone5000 4y ago
You'd never get to the end state you describe if people are uncomfortable recommending the software because of the name. Word-of-mouth fails when the literal word is something you won't say.
They should change the name; it's difficult to understand why the maintainers are so attached to something so self-defeating.
- Beldin 4y agoThat was my point: while you may have some/strong inhibitions due to this name, I don't. To me, "git" is far worse - probably because of gaps in my English, but still. You don't get why they don't change the name; I would rather folks spend effort on improving Gimp than changing its name. (Same for git btw.) I think name changes are like bug fixes: the later in the life cycle you go for it, the more expensive. Whether that is worth the cost... in the case of Gimp and git: for you maybe yes, for me decidedly no. Doesn't mean either of us is more right than the other, but does say something about how we feel about using and talking about these pieces of software.
- inDigiNeous 4y agoThis guy (or girl, who am I to say) gets it.