On 2017-07-17, at 08:03, Phil Smith wrote: > ... > Absolutely. “IBM i” is quite possibly the stupidest name ever from a branding > perspective, as it’s *not searchable*: when you look for it, you find “When I > was at IBM, I used to…” and the like. “z Systems” and “System z” weren’t > great, but were better than “IBM i”. Agreed that “IBM Z” looks sort of like a > typo; “zSeries” was better, even if folks tended to get it wrong: Zseries, > z-series, z/series, etc. > "C" is a prime offender. Perhaps they'll learn; it's another case of designers not being users (cf. KC). Even as the "uname -s" command had to retreat to "OS/390" from "z/OS", presumably because the latter broke existing GNU autoconfigure art.
I hope they don't conflate "zFS" with ZFS". But try searching for the former. > Branding is always hard; in the era of Google, there’s this additional > difficulty of making it findable. Hence all the ostensibly stupid names like > “Flickr”—those are easy to search! -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
