Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I looked through the output of 'dpkg -l' on one of my systems and > > > saw very few packages with plain English names. > > > > And this is significant because ... ? > > Because it demonstrates that most people thing plain English > names are too generic and therefore not suitable for package names.
No it doesn't, it simply illustrates that no one has chosen a `plain English name' for a package. That no one has chosen such name implies nothing about their reasoning. If you wish to argue that a particular name is unsuitable you can do so based on the name, or to some relevant category to which it belongs -- for instance `editor' is unsuitable because it obviously applies to many, many packages, and so is too generic -- but the category `English names' is simply too broad to say much about. As I said before `water' is fairly unique, because it refers to a physical thing, rather than an action or an actor that performs some action. It is unlikely to cause any problems. Morever, a common attribute of demos, which exist mainly to entertain and impress, is that they have striking names, and I think most people would agree that `water' is far cooler that `water-demo'. -Miles
