Comment by burnte
7 hours ago
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.
7 hours ago
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).
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.
>> 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.
Ignoring for a moment the annoying software engineer tropes of "emotional=bad, logical=good" labeling and its unawareness of the fact that logic and emotions are hopelessly enmeshed; deciding what work to prioritize how you spend your limited time does not seem particularly "emotional."
>"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"
2 replies →
Different people have different perspectives.
My point is that from a developers PoV, renaming is not an evident net-gain at all-- might be seen as pointless branding busywork that leeches ressources from "actual" problems.
That is not "being emotional", it's just different priorities.
Technical procedural issues don't become "emotional reasons" because you hand-wave them away. This sounds like volunteering other peoples time.
1 reply →
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 the playing of politics as a no-brainer, which is a very different mindset from a Linux contributor. I don't think people get into kernel maintenance to play politics.
3 replies →
> "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 am not sure why you would say that they are "emotional reasons".
comparing the cost (difficulty, complications, etc.) against the benefit of doing something before doing it seems quite logical.
1 reply →
That’s exactly it. So many engineers aspire to build generalized, flexible components that get tons of adoption by being easy to use. The problem is that they have have just volunteered to be disconnected from their users. And this myopic refusal to rename Libwacom is a perfect example.
It’s probably down to one underappreciated Linux dev somewhere who is tired of the debate and spends their time fixing actual bugs.
It seems like it would be simple to just create a fork and archive the old repo. Add a note to the old repo, update a couple of the most important docs and links, and then worry about the rest later. It can be low hanging fruit for new contributors.
Change is painful in general. But it may have a sufficient upside to withstand the pain.
Name changes are controversial. Nothing gets nerds going more than changing a project name so companies work better with OSS.
Yes, I know, but that all just underscores what I said about it being emotional. Logically it's not only Wacom but for any tablet. It would do better with a new name as other competitors would help. But the emotional resistance to changing the name keeps those logical improvements form happening.
Second hardest thing in CS besides cache invalidation and off by one errors....
Don't concurrency. forget about
True nerds name things properly in the first place. The liberal use of -wacom throughout project names and repositories is a consequence of the Wacom itch being scratched - and then that scratch becoming the base upon which Wacoms' competitors can participate. A true nerd would've skipped including the brand in a directory name, in the first place .. I bet these drivers started off being written by graphics designers, not nerds.
Yet name changes happen easily when legally forced. Wireshark, MariaDB, and LibreOffice.
So, um, the phrase "legally forced" really does not go with "happened easily".
Ignoring what "legally" forced entails, and just focusing on the mechanics of renaming stuff: Even if your code base can be updated with a simple "s/old/new/" regex (and, IME, this never, ever works as well as you thought it would, and always creates a long tail of manual grepping and editing), you still have to fix the docs, deal with breaking API changes, support multiple versions, provide upgrade paths, deal with confused users, etc. etc. etc.
And, um, confusingly, the examples you cite are actually even more complicated and work-intensive than what is being talked about in this article, because they also require URL / domain name updates, legal document changes, regulatory filings, etc. etc.
TLDR: the contention that "name changes happen easily" is not an accurate description of the situations you are citing.
just change the name to mocaW
main vs master
The issue has always been with the reasons invoked to make the change
Otherwise it would have been smoother
4 replies →
personally my default branch is called dominatrix, just to annoy the kind of person who argues about master
1 reply →
mainster
ugh, half the repos at work use main and half use master. Such a pain.
6 replies →
Preach. And it's a disease.
Signed, the guy who will forever believe GIMP could have been a contender with a name change decades ago.
Yep. I was an intern at Disney Feature Animation when GIMP first came out. It was really exciting, an alternative to Photoshop (which used to run on linux!) and our in-house painting tools. I pushed for artists to use it, but was told by management to stop mentioning it as "Disney could never use a tool called GIMP". Also that reaction from several artists (who were already tech-savvy, linux using folks in the exact target audience) so it wasn't just "corporate". TBH I think a lot of programmers do this intentionally to protect themselves from their little project ever becoming too mainstream.
Just last night was was thinking about KeePass. Sure, it wounds like Key Pass, or Keep Pass, but it also sounds like Keep Ass, which while cheeky, is less than perfectly commercially enticing. It feels like ExpertsExchange...
BRO THANK YOU.
This was something I knew to be true in my much more limited circle, but I very much appreciate the real life bigger example.
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 LibreOffice Draw for that.
It did stop it from being used in a multiple markets though. Fine is some places, not in others is not good branding, especially when one of the places its not fine in is the biggest and most influential market.
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.
1 reply →
The unfortunate truth is that the English speaking market matters for that kind of product and that name is a barrier. It just doesn’t matter that your day to day language or life doesn’t encounter it.
I've been up and down this debate a million times, a lot of it here, suffice it to say -- the fact that you and others don't recognize this does not at all detract from my point.
To summarize, it's not e.g. about me being personally offended -- it's about people like me (a long time ago) wanting to show people this great software and other reasonable people seeing the name, understanding the meaning, and reasonably thinking "If this software were actually good, why does it have such a ridiculous and often offensive name?"
An unserious name -- literally chosen to be an edgy joke -- projects "unserious software."
I'm surprised they didn't just write it out as GNU IMP in the website, documentation, and about boxes. They could just leave the code alone and save themselves the trouble.
[dead]