Difference between revisions of "Talk:Dao.doc (2002)"
From Organic Design wiki
(dao comment) |
(Stressful affiliating with other things in names) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I like this document's style. It is a good compromise between the philosophical side and the technical side. Why don't we call the OS Dao? | I like this document's style. It is a good compromise between the philosophical side and the technical side. Why don't we call the OS Dao? | ||
--[[User:Rob|Rob]] 11:15, 11 Apr 2006 (NZST) | --[[User:Rob|Rob]] 11:15, 11 Apr 2006 (NZST) | ||
| + | :No way, best to totally avoid such names as they're too weighed down by existing opinion, like making it the yin-yang logo. I think we have to just try and name things simply and descriptively like "peer" ("peerix" is stretching it by sounding a bit too cool, but gets away with it by following the something-ix convention for linux/unix flavours). --[[User:Nad|Nad]] 12:05, 11 Apr 2006 (NZST) | ||
Revision as of 00:05, 11 April 2006
I like this document's style. It is a good compromise between the philosophical side and the technical side. Why don't we call the OS Dao? --Rob 11:15, 11 Apr 2006 (NZST)
- No way, best to totally avoid such names as they're too weighed down by existing opinion, like making it the yin-yang logo. I think we have to just try and name things simply and descriptively like "peer" ("peerix" is stretching it by sounding a bit too cool, but gets away with it by following the something-ix convention for linux/unix flavours). --Nad 12:05, 11 Apr 2006 (NZST)
