On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III
>>>>>> "AM" == Anne Mulhern <amulhern(a)redhat.com>
> AM> The question assumes that the upstream had deliberately chosen the
> AM> name for this meaning, that it wasn't an accidental match, as in
> AM> debugger or manuscript.
> If you have an upstream which does such a thing, what are the chances
> that the software they're producing is actually useful? If it's useful,
> it should stand on its merits and not the name. And if it's just crap,
> then there probably isn't much point in adding it to the distribution.
> I would assume that any such software would tend towards the 'crap' end
> of the spectrum, but it's an infinite universe....
The word "git" actually has a pretty rude standard meaning.
And my wife just pointed out "gimp".
Long ago, there was a network monitoring tool called "satan" that was
pretty good, and came with a configuration flag that changed the URL's
and webpage images to "santa". Satan gave birth to Netsaint, which
gave birth to Nagios, which will probably give birth to Throg, who
will accompany the nine startup devs on their quest for the Golden