And it's been a decade long argument? Sounds like someone is just emotionally attached to something not changing. Those are the hardest problems to solve.
Not necessarily. The technical people managing the repos might just be opposed to name changing in general (seeing how a boatload of links, references, documentation would require updating, some of which you don't even control), and meanwhile those people might feel the "misbranding" drawbacks much less (if at all).
Change is painful in general. But it may have a sufficient upside to withstand the pain.
I would categorize all those as emotional reasons not to change, not logical reasons. "It's hard!" So? "It's complicated" So? "Some of it other people control." This will always be the case, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. If the status quo means a worse project, then you're not changing because you don't WANT to, not because it's a good idea. And that's an emotional, not logical ,decision.
>"It's hard!" So? "It's complicated" So? So there's no point in wasting time on this, if perceived problems are low or nonexistent. Current maintainers probably look at it from a technical pov "it's just a name, who cares"
> it's just a name, who cares
This cannot be, naming things is one of the two canonical hard problems.
I'm entering troubled waters but hey... The master to main issue is an accident of the history of the USA, still unresolved in its consequences, when most of the world was not practicing slavery anymore. The typical reaction outside the USA is rolling eyes and hope that all the ethnic groups inside the USA will finally get along. If the IT and economic powerhouse of the world were India instead of the USA and Indians…
It seems most likely to me that this particular sensitivity to any sort of social controversy and the status of the US as the sort of… de-facto default place of doing international business for a long time, are probably linked. The US corporate culture’s default stance is probably a learned reflex. Better to look a little over-sensitive, than to scuttle a deal by blundering into somebody’s cultural trigger.
It seems to be very popular in the US to take offence on behalf of others. For example: one hears of US people getting upset about “cultural appropriation” on behalf of others, when said others are actually actively happy about their culture being shown and appreciated. You can definitely take things too far in either direction.
Not necessarily. The technical people managing the repos might just be opposed to name changing in general (seeing how a boatload of links, references, documentation would require updating, some of which you don't even control), and meanwhile those people might feel the "misbranding" drawbacks much less (if at all).
I would categorize all those as emotional reasons not to change, not logical reasons. "It's hard!" So? "It's complicated" So? "Some of it other people control." This will always be the case, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. If the status quo means a worse project, then you're not changing because you don't WANT to, not because it's a good idea. And that's an emotional, not logical ,decision.
Technical procedural issues don't become "emotional reasons" because you hand-wave them away. This sounds like volunteering other peoples time.
And it's been a decade long argument? Sounds like someone is just emotionally attached to something not changing. Those are the hardest problems to solve.
Name changes are controversial. Nothing gets nerds going more than changing a project name so companies work better with OSS.
I would categorize all those as emotional reasons not to change, not logical reasons. "It's hard!" So? "It's complicated" So? "Some of it other people control." This will always be the case, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. If the status quo means a worse project, then you're not changing because you don't WANT to, not because it's a good idea. And that's an emotional, not logical ,decision.
Technical procedural issues don't become "emotional reasons" because you hand-wave them away. This sounds like volunteering other peoples time.
I would categorize all those as emotional reasons not to change, not logical reasons. "It's hard!" So? "It's complicated" So? "Some of it other people control." This will always be the case, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. If the status quo means a worse project, then you're not changing because you don't WANT to, not because it's a good idea. And that's an emotional, not logical ,decision.
I think it's the exact opposite of what you're saying. The maintainers sound like they're only considering the technical cost (and judging it not worth it) instead of factoring in the political consequences of keeping the same naming. I actually really respect those who value the technical over the political, but in a large-scale, public-facing project, some politics must be played. It seems to me like you're viewing…
No, I'm not saying the politics is a no brainer. I'm saying there is a logical barrier to the project succeeding, and it is the name. Other people refuse to work with it using the current name, people who would make it a much more useful product. Deciding it's not a TECHNICAL problem is an emotional decision, because you're not reframing it from what it is, a barrier to success, to something it's not, a non-issue. They're deciding not to engage with the hard problem.
Not necessarily. The technical people managing the repos might just be opposed to name changing in general (seeing how a boatload of links, references, documentation would require updating, some of which you don't even control), and meanwhile those people might feel the "misbranding" drawbacks much less (if at all).
I would categorize all those as emotional reasons not to change, not logical reasons. "It's hard!" So? "It's complicated" So? "Some of it other people control." This will always be the case, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. If the status quo means a worse project, then you're not changing because you don't WANT to, not because it's a good idea. And that's an emotional, not logical ,decision.
> "It's hard!" So? "It's complicated" So?
So it will take valuable developer time that might be better utilized to work on something else. And even if they do rename it, there isn't any guarantee that the other vendors would then agree to collaborate.
I find it interesting that you think this rename serves a purpose when the master to main rename does not. Neither change has any technical reason. The only reason why either name change was desired is because some contributors were upset by the names.
When I started using a graphics tablet, long ago, I was confused about why all this stuff was labelled Wacom, and whether it was applicable to me or not, when using a device of another brand. Some parts of it seemed to be, and other parts didn’t? It was very confusing, and a genuine confusion that made me uncertain even in purchasing. (It would be less confusing now because user-facing parts don’t touch the “Wacom” n…
We had to refactor all our internal and external documentation from Master -> leader and slave -> subordinate. So you get things like “… in subordinate mode”.
Thankfully the actual code remained the same (because only engineers look at it).
In non-English speaking countries gimp is a short word that is so seldom used that nobody knows what it means. I used GIMP for a very long time before running into a story about the meaning of the English world. It was only GNU Image Manipulation Program to me. It still is a contender for image editing programs, for limited photo retouch, for very limited drawing (draw a rectangle outline without googling?) I use Lib…
Nobody in my middle and high school had any idea "gimp" had an English meaning. I assume if anyone knew, we kids would at least occasionally joke about it (we used gimp for various projects). It was long after university after I learned that it's also an English word.
I don't know why people keep making this point as if it matters; it sounds like you might be trying to absolve the creators or something.
But again, the people who gave the name to the project deliberately chose it because they found its slight offensiveness to be funny.
They knew what they were doing and chose to continue to do it anyway.