On Mar 4, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Michael van der Gulik wrote:

> "Squeak" is a name that's hard to take seriously, and I for one  
> would be less inclined to advertise that any product I make is based  
> on "Squeak". However, there's a large investment in the name - URLs,  
> source code, public awareness,  etc.  The name is unlikely to change.

Squeak is not the most professional-sounding name that could have been  
chosen.  One very important purpose of a name is marketing, and the  
name "Squeak" doesn't do that very well in a few rather important  
markets.  Of course, if you're marketing to children (and those who  
educate them,) then Squeak is not at all a bad name.

But that's all water under the bridge at this point.  Changing the  
name only, in the absence of any other substantive changes, would at  
best be ignored as a shameless (and not well-motivated) marketing  
ploy. At worst, it would be seen as an act of desperation.

Change Squeak so that it deserves a new name.  Then the new name will  
be perceived as having been earned, and so will serve as an effective  
marketing tool to advertise the new, improved "Open Source Smalltalk."

--Alan