On Tuesday 19 December 2006 13:07, Zack Rusin wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 December 2006 07:34, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 December 2006 12:40, Zack Rusin wrote:
> > > It looks like we're trying to market libraries which in turn is pretty
> > > bizarre. Users don't care, or should never have to care about
> > > technologies under the applications they're using, so the existence of
> > > Phonon, Solid or Decibel doesn't matter to them.
> >
> > If we were a company; I'd agree. But we are an open source project and
> > after targeting users, we have to realize that the only way we can go on
> > living is getting new developers.  So we market for new developers as much,
> > or even more, than for end users.
> > Which makes having cool library names a pretty big deal.
> 
> So as an engineer you're attracted to names and you'd join KDE because 
> libraries have cool names? I'd expect engineers to look at technologies not 
> through their names but what they do (CoreAnimation and Window Presentation 
> Foundation are pretty plain names, for technologies everyone wants to play 
> with) and marketing what a technology does is done very differently than 
> application. 
> 
> Saying that as a project to be able to market successfully to engineers you 
> need goofy names is like having library developers saying they need to be 
> naming class that does painting  QGesner (Gesner was the first to introduce 
> pencil which everyone doing painting clearly knows). And I might add QGesner 
> is freaking waaay cooler than QPainter but if we had QGesner instead of a 
> QPainter everyone would find that silly. Sure if the technology is good 
> people will still use it without a problem, but there always be "wtf is X 
> doing" stage.
> 
> z

Tulip, Arthur, Interview, Scribe,... Trolltechies are mad.   :-)

    (Not that I'm particularly competent for commenting
     on this topic  --  but did I ever care?  :-P   )

Cheers,
Kurt