On Mon 02 Jan 2012, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 01/02/12 05:53, Andy Moreton wrote:
>
>> Using the term "win32" does not connote winning or losing
>
> No doubt it has that connotation only to some people, and not to
> others. But we should be communicating to as many people as
> possible, including the people who see the connotation.
>> The term "woe32" is insulting rather than descriptive
>
> This seems to be inconsistent with the previous quote.
> If "win32" doesn't connote "win", why would "woe32" connote "woe"?
Because win32 is a widely accepted term, in use for many years, with a
widely understood meaning. As a locally invented term, readers wonder
how it was coined.
> I used "Woe32" because that seemed to be the second
> most commonly used Gnulib term for this notion: it's currently
> used 68 times in Gnulib. "Woe32" is short for "Windows Operating
> Environment, 32-bit".
That seems to be a case of fitting a set of words around the already
chosen term, rather than an acronym or abbreviation.
> The phrase "Windows Operating Environment" itself is perfectly
> respectable, being used about 20,000 times on microsoft.com according
> to Google.
In that context the term refers to the Windows operating system and
related applications as a whole, not the Win32 API.
> Admittedly the Microsoft marketing department is not likely to
> approve of the acronym "WOE", but we're under no obligation
> to do Microsoft's marketing.
No, but silly naming does not impress anyone. Do you write HPSUX or
Slowaris ? No ? Thought not. If you wish free software to be taken
seriously, please afford others the same courtesy you expect to receive.
AndyM
