On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:22 AM, K. K. Subramaniam <subbukk at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday 01 March 2008 5:34:52 am Craig Latta wrote:
> >       Let's turn our attention to Squeak 4 now. Let's create a kernel
> > with nothing extraneous in it, and a module system we can use to keep
> > the organization clear. I think the result will be much easier to learn,
> > and far more pleasant to use. Getting there will be difficult, but it
> > will be worth it.
> If we are going to strip Squeak down and rebuild it, should we consider
> picking a new name for the project? The name Squeak has been around for
> more
> than a decade and has strong associations (good or bad) with certain
> feature
> sets and intended uses. A legally clear open source base is a good time to
> invent a new platform that can consolidate the lessons learnt from the
> Squeak
> project and build a new system for the next generation - just as Squeak
> emerged from Smalltalk-80.
>
> Spoon? Hydra? Athena? Phoenix? Roar :-)?
>


I've thought about this too. "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.

In my opinion, Squeak should be a minimal image that is used as a base or a
template to create other projects that have different names. Squeak could be
thought of as an internal development name that only us coders need to be
aware of. What is advertised to the outside world are the names of the other
projects, with a small note on the bottom of the packaging saying "Made with
Squeak".

Mind you, Linux is taken seriously, and they use a fat penguin as a mascot.

Gulik.


-- 
http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg
http://gulik.pbwiki.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20080305/75ab37d6/attachment.htm