headers
Holger Levsen | 16 Sep 15:30

thoughts on a new name

Hi,

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 ;-)

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.

Maybe "Debian Remix" or "Debian (Pure) Blend". Also I think it should be 
something short, "Debian Integrated Solutions" IMO not only has the 
disadvantage that some remixes aint solutions, but also that nobody will use 
it and so we will have to explain DIS again. 

A name should speak for itself.

Or am I the only one unhappy with DIS?

regards,
	Holger
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Charles Plessy | 16 Sep 16:03
Favicon

Re: thoughts on a new name

Le Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 03:34:24PM +0200, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> 
> Maybe "Debian Remix" or "Debian (Pure) Blend". Also I think it should be 
> something short, "Debian Integrated Solutions" IMO not only has the 
> disadvantage that some remixes aint solutions, but also that nobody will use 
> it and so we will have to explain DIS again. 

Hi Holger,

we do not need to stick with the acronym. We can simply write things
like 'Debian Med is an <a href="the ex-CDD page">integrated
solution</a>'. Actually, on our homepage, the 'CDD' is written nowhere,
so switching to DIS will not be a problem in this aspect ;)

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-custom-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ben Armstrong | 20 Sep 22:51

Re: thoughts on a new name

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:34:24 +0200
Holger Levsen <holger <at> layer-acht.org> wrote:
> Maybe "Debian Remix" or "Debian (Pure) Blend".

Those are both nice.  Less pedestrian than my own suggestions, too.

> Or am I the only one unhappy with DIS?

Nope.  I'm unhappy with it, too.  Not as unhappy as I was with CDD, but
sufficiently unhappy that I'd like it to be seriously reconsidered and
not just adopted by default.

Ben
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Vagrant Cascadian | 20 Sep 23:46
Favicon

Re: thoughts on a new name

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 03:34:24PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Maybe "Debian Remix" or "Debian (Pure) Blend". Also I think it should be 
> something short, "Debian Integrated Solutions" IMO not only has the 
> disadvantage that some remixes aint solutions, but also that nobody will use 
> it and so we will have to explain DIS again. 
> 
> A name should speak for itself.
> 
> Or am I the only one unhappy with DIS?

i haven't wanted to get dragged into this discussion too much, as it
seems like many people have put so much energy into it and we're still
struggling with a good name.

but i too have been a little unhappy with DIS. or DISh? the silent H
makes it particularly confusing to me. and having both, makes it more
confusing yet.

i think Remix has a lot of the same problems that Custom has had- it
suggests something that may be clearly based upon, but not necessarily
part of the whole.

"Integrated" seems like a really good descriptive word, but something
about "Solutions" doesn't really seem to say anything to me.

what's been swirling around in my mind:

Debian Integrated Projects? Integrated Debian Projects? Debian
Integrated Distribution? ...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Otavio Salvador | 22 Sep 00:35
Favicon

Re: thoughts on a new name

Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant <at> freegeek.org> writes:

> Integrated Debian Distribution (IDD)?  hmmmmm...  seems pretty direct
> and to the point, with little room for confusion- dare i propose IDD as
> a real contender? :)

+1

--

-- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: otavio <at> debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Holger Levsen | 21 Sep 00:43

Re: thoughts on a new name

Hi,

just fixing some typos here...

On Tuesday 16 September 2008 15:34, Holger Levsen 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
                                                      the
> 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 ;-)
>
> 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
                                     shouldn't
> acronym, but something that clearly emphasizes it's Debian.
>
> Maybe "Debian Remix" or "Debian (Pure) Blend". Also I think it should be
> something short, "Debian Integrated Solutions" IMO not only has the
> disadvantage that some remixes aint solutions, but also that nobody will
> use it and so we will have to explain DIS again.
>
> A name should speak for itself.
>
> Or am I the only one unhappy with DIS?
>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Paul Wise | 21 Sep 07:30
Favicon

Re: thoughts on a new name

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Holger Levsen <holger <at> layer-acht.org> 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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer | 24 Sep 20:14
X-Face

Re: thoughts on a new name

On Sunday 21 September 2008 02:30:09 Paul Wise wrote:
[snip]
> 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 

I think this is the most accurate description I have read so far :-)
It goes straight to the point: we make a subproject in Debian.

--

-- 
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ben Armstrong | 24 Sep 20:37

Re: thoughts on a new name

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:14:22 -0300
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <perezmeyer <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this is the most accurate description I have read so far :-)
> It goes straight to the point: we make a subproject in Debian.

And so we come full circle.  Debian Jr. was called a subproject
initially.  We decided we needed a better name back then because Debian
is full of subprojects, not all of which are "thingy1":

http://wiki.debian.org/CDDNamingProposals#head-28e0bfc23ab009f3ecb4e464e56e81f4009033b8

Perhaps we need listed on this page examples of subprojects that
are in Debian that are *not* thingy1 (and don't fall in the categories
thingy2 or thingy3) since there seems to be some confusion here.

Have a look at:

http://www.us.debian.org/devel/

Notice the "projects" listed there that are not on the shorter list of
CDDs beneath it.

I am quite opposed to just going back to "Debian subprojects" because
then we lose the distinction altogether that we're trying to make.  The
idea that when you set out to make a "Debian-derived distribution", if
you follow the CDD approach, you and your users are much better off is
very hard to express if you don't have a name for the alternative.

Ben
--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Holger Levsen | 24 Sep 22:47

Re: thoughts on a new name

Hi,

On Wednesday 24 September 2008 20:37, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> I am quite opposed to just going back to "Debian subprojects" because
> then we lose the distinction altogether that we're trying to make.  The
> idea that when you set out to make a "Debian-derived distribution", if
> you follow the CDD approach, you and your users are much better off is
> very hard to express if you don't have a name for the alternative.

what _is_ the CDD approach?

regards,
	Holger </innocent look>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Paul Wise | 25 Sep 11:55
Favicon

Re: thoughts on a new name

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 2:37 AM, Ben Armstrong
<synrg <at> sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca> wrote:

> http://wiki.debian.org/CDDNamingProposals#head-28e0bfc23ab009f3ecb4e464e56e81f4009033b8
>
> Perhaps we need listed on this page examples of subprojects that
> are in Debian that are *not* thingy1 (and don't fall in the categories
> thingy2 or thingy3) since there seems to be some confusion here.

I don't see how thingy1 aren't Debian subprojects.

> Have a look at:
>
> http://www.us.debian.org/devel/
>
> Notice the "projects" listed there that are not on the shorter list of
> CDDs beneath it.

I don't think there is any reason for that split, indeed, most of the
CDDs there say "Debian foo Project".

> I am quite opposed to just going back to "Debian subprojects" because
> then we lose the distinction altogether that we're trying to make.  The
> idea that when you set out to make a "Debian-derived distribution", if
> you follow the CDD approach, you and your users are much better off is
> very hard to express if you don't have a name for the alternative.

Could you explain what the distinction between CDDs/thingy1 and what
you understand from the term "Debian subprojects" was meant to be and
what the purpose of the distinction?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ben Armstrong | 25 Sep 12:46

Re: thoughts on a new name

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:55:11 +0800
"Paul Wise" <pabs <at> debian.org> wrote:
> I don't see how thingy1 aren't Debian subprojects.

Huh?  I didn't say that.  I said there are many Debian subprojects that
aren't thingy1!

> Could you explain what the distinction between CDDs/thingy1 and what
> you understand from the term "Debian subprojects" was meant to be and
> what the purpose of the distinction?

In the broadest sense, a Debian subproject is any organized effort
within Debian to accomplish something.  Thingy1 is clearly defined on
the naming proposal page, so I don't know why you need further
clarification.  If you don't identify with others who are trying to
accomplish the same sort of thing within their subprojects, naturally,
you won't care about giving it a name.  We name this distinction to
help communicate about our shared goals and purpose.

Ben
--
 ,-.  nSLUG    http://www.nslug.ns.ca   synrg <at> sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
 \`'  Debian   http://www.debian.org    synrg <at> debian.org
  `          [ gpg 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Tzafrir Cohen | 21 Sep 08:43
Favicon

Re: thoughts on a new name

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 03:34:24PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 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 ;-)
> 
> 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.
> 
> Maybe "Debian Remix" or "Debian (Pure) Blend". Also I think it should be 
> something short, "Debian Integrated Solutions" IMO not only has the 
> disadvantage that some remixes aint solutions, but also that nobody will use 
> it and so we will have to explain DIS again. 
> 
> A name should speak for itself.
> 
> Or am I the only one unhappy with DIS?

Not that I really care. But take a really bad name, such as "SOD"
(subset of Debian), and add beatify it a bit:

  LIRASOD
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
W. Martin Borgert | 21 Sep 12:54
Favicon

Question on "remix"

I like "Debian remix", partly because Ubuntu already uses it, so
it is well-known. As far as I understand the concepts, we would
use the word "remix" slightly different. Is this a problem?

Shall we use "blend" instead for that reason? (Maybe not
"flavour", because people will spell it varyingly.) I'm in
favour of "Debian remix" so far. It has an -ix in it :~)
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Otavio Salvador | 22 Sep 00:36
Favicon

Re: Question on "remix"

"W. Martin Borgert" <debacle <at> debian.org> writes:

> I like "Debian remix", partly because Ubuntu already uses it, so
> it is well-known. As far as I understand the concepts, we would
> use the word "remix" slightly different. Is this a problem?

As spot by Vagrant, remix doesn't suggests it is integrated or part of
a whole.

--

-- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: otavio <at> debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane