On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 18:12 +0000, Daniel Carrera wrote: > Ian Lynch wrote: > >>The .org in the productname directly makes clear this is an Open Source > >>project and people are tempted to try out the name in a browser to see > >>more about the product. So actually I think the .org is a good thing > >>from a marketing point of view. > > > > +1 > > Nah, I don't like the .org at all. And I don't think it conveys "open > souce" in the slightest.
In the slightest? How slight is slight? More internet related and that its an organisation/community that communicates over the internet than specifically open source perhaps. > You don't hear people say "Linux.org" or > "Firefox.org". That's because they have different names. Nothing wrong with being different. > There is no connection between a .org extension and an > open source project. There is some connection in that most communities use .org extensions. That does not mean .orgs are all open source, but most open source communities are .orgs. I'd say that was the slightest conveyance :-) > The only other project I can think of that has a > .org is the name is X.org, and it's not the type of project that you try > to sell to the uneducated masses. I think that word "open" is more > likely to convey the concept of open source. The uneducated masses just accept words that become familiar to them. There is a tl east some marketing advantage in getting a debate going about .org because it keeps people talking about the product. > If we had a vote for a name change, I'd vote in favour of dropping the .org I don't think it matters much at all but having a tag to make soemthing more memorable is not really a disadvantage. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMS Ltd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
