Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Bill Haneman wrote:

> Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 10:48:09 +0000
> From: Bill Haneman <Bill Haneman Sun COM>
> To: rms gnu org
> Cc: release-team gnome org, Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>,
>      foundation-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to
>     answer]
>
> Richard M. Stallman wrote:
>
> >    Maybe we should just claim that we can't spell very well; ISV = "Third
> >    Party Developer".  A whole new kind of a10n[1].  ;-)

[a10n == abbreviation presumably.]

> >We can't solve the problem by denying it.

No one is denying the power of words but matters of linguistics are
distracting from more important issues (like the need for clear
information and heading off patent threats).

> >    We use the term interchangably with 'third party developers', and
> > have made
> >    that explicit in many cases when we talk about it. OOo and Firefox
> > also fit
> >    into this world view as 'third party developers' or ISVs.
> >
> >The term "third party developers" has no problems--so I think that is
> >a good solution.

> Nearly - though any new acronym can obfuscate.

> I do think it's worth making this change, as you say, rather than
> denying the issue.

Would it really kill people to write out "Third Party Developer" and avoid
the confusion entirely?  You wouldn't obfuscate your code with
indescipherable acronyms, so please do not add to the perceived elitism
with even more exclusive jargon.

- Alan