2 ms·
There was a period where this confusion was there with Teams (Classic) and Teams (New). There was the whole .NET Core/.NET (while having .NET Standard for libr
by ramkarthikk 2y ago
There was a period where this confusion was there with Teams (Classic) and Teams (New).
There was the whole .NET Core/.NET (while having .NET Standard for libraries) confusion. Even now many people think .NET requires Windows. Maybe they should have named it .NET Open?
- DoctorOW 2y agoMissed opportunity to name it .ORG
- omnibrain 2y agoOr when they renamed Lync to Skype for Business, which had nothing to do with Skype.
- daveslash 2y agoAnd then they have OneDrive, SharePoint, Office365, and Teams as ways to share files... which are all the same thing/infrastructure under the hood.
- camcil 2y agoThe confusion persists in job requirements, especially when those requirements are translated from technical stakeholders through HR.
- hypeatei 2y agoWhat confusion? "x years of .NET experience" is what I see and it should suffice unless your whole career has been in an archaic version of .NET framework then you should have no issues working with either.
- Jenk 2y agoCoPilot takes the crown of most overused moniker now.
- jimbob45 2y agoDo they just not let marketing into the important meetings? Naming isn’t a solved problem but marketers are usually pretty good at knowing when to avoid confusing situations like these.
- tatersolid 2y agoIn my experience Marketing causes most product and feature naming issues. Technical folks want to name it something obvious, and marketing overrules them.
- EvanAnderson 2y agoI won't copy/paste the comment, but awhile ago I ranted Microsoft product naming and got some nice replies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40419292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40419292