On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Brendan <mailinglist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> All the above comprise a significant factor in why forks are regarded, >> at best, as a necessary evil. All forks dilute branding, which >> introduces user confusion and repels potential users. > > I think it's incorrect to say it repels potential users and leave it at that. > It will also just as likely ATTRACT new users who were put off by the lame > name. That's speculative. We know from past software history that what I described actually happens. (I'm not opposed to a rebranding. I just think that it would need to be done a) really thoroughly and carefully, b) in cooperation with GIMP developers, and c) released with very calculated timing. And also that such a rebranding is very far from trivial to achieve.) > > Call it the Gnu IMP. This has to be facetiousness, doesn't it? In what parallel universe do you live in, that people will not simplify 'Gnu IMP' down to 'gIMP'/'GIMP'? For that matter, how is 'GIMP' (which may be considered offensive by people who've seen Pulp Fiction, or by disabled people) better than gIMP (which may be considered offensive by religious nutcases)? It seems to me that there are far more people in the latter category. _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
