Re: [Gimp-user] OT: Was: Gimp name-picking

["Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg tristatelogic com>]

In message <253415241 1190746 1325133986615 JavaMail root vms228 mailsrvcs net>
, tomdf verizon net wrote:

> I didn't have time to read this whole thread, so pardon me if it's
> already been
> pointed out that the idea of changing the name of GIMP has come up more
> than
> once in the past.
>
> My vote:  leave it alone.  The recognition it has gained over the years
> is invaluable.
> Go to google and type in photoshop.  GIMP is listed fifth.  You can't
> beat that.


I'm new here, so by all rights I shouldn't even really have a vote.  However,
that notwithstanding, allow me to say:  Seconded!

Frankly, and meaning no offense to any party, I do think that this discussion
is a bit absurd.  I mean it is as if someone proposed changing the name of
the Empire State Building, or the name of Topeka, Kansas.  What's the point?
Everybody already knows these things by their current names, and that kind
of inertia is historically almost impossible to change by fiat.  In the case
of Gimp, there are already at least a half a dozen books IN PRINT with that
name in the title and that describe this great program, and probably hundreds
of thousands of copies of said books already in circulation.

In televised news reports about "Myanmar", on either the BBC or on NBC Nightly
news the announcer always says "...Myanmar formerly known as Burma..." because
most people _still_ have no idea WTF "Myanmar" is.  (And if you google for
"Myanmar", the first non-news hit that comes up is the Wikipedia entry for
Burma.)

In short, names are very "sticky" things.

Separately and also, what difference does the name make anyway?  A rose by
any other name...

My dear departed father, God rest his soul, imparted to me many small bits
of wisdom as I was growing up, often by way of various aphorisms.  One of
the many he repeated to me often was:

    "It isn't what you are called that matters.  It is what you can do WHEN
     you are called that matters."

Gimp is a fine program, and it can do much when it is called upon to do so.
Changing its name would neither add to nor subtract from that.


Regards,
rfg


P.S.  I happen to like the name Gimp.  It's consistant with the (intentionally
humorous) tradition of having the names of most or all GNUish (copylefted?)
free software packages begin with the letter `g', and also be easily pro-
nounced.  In this case, it all rolls easily off the tounge.  I was explaining
to my neighbor just the other night that "Gimp is the GNU Image Processing
package".

P.P.S.  Whoever wrote that dictionary entry saying that one definition of
"gimp" is somebody who likes to dress up in leather from head to toe and be
treated as a sex slave obviously just saw the movie "Pulp Fiction" one too
many times.  I really do not think that this (postulated) definition of
the word "gimp" is actually part of the common vernacular among the populace
at large.  (But even if it was, that would make no difference to anything,
since _our_ gimp is clearly a different kind of gimp altogether.)