On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it occured to me yesterday, that I think that this topic is still open and > that the cause might be very simple: the reason why a new name doesnt catch > up (IMHO it doesnt) is that it's confusing/not needed/immediatly clear why > it's needed. > > AIUI we want to name a variant of Debian, right? So, no modified/additional > sources or binaries? (Just a different presentation...) IMO that _is_ Debian. > So there is no need for a new name ;-) Agreed. > Surely, to be able to point out the difference, some name needs to be found. > But I (now) think, the name should be some "random" three letter acronym, but > something that clearly emphasizes it's Debian. Do we need to point out the difference when there isn't any? The shed shall be named Debian! If we do, I like Debian subprojects or Debian special interest groups, or maybe Debian slices. > Or am I the only one unhappy with DIS? No. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
