0
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
Privacy
1135 readers
9 users here now
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why are privacy/copyleft advocates so bad at naming?
They usually don't have marketing departments or focus groups.
You obviously don't need those to come up with a good name; just some taste. Signal is a great example. Ladybird and Servo are good browser names if you want to stick to that. LibreWolf? Jesus, come on guys. Forgejo is another terrible name I heard recently. Apparently it's Esperanto, like that makes it ok somehow.
God forbid some non-anglophone culture enters our collective consciousness.
What culture is esperanto? That is fake invented language.
It's Latin-derived, the pronunciation would be easier for Romance language natives, I guess.
That said, all languages are made up.
What would you call it instead?
We already have (had) Iceweasel, IceCat and Waterfox among others. All nice word plays on the original Firefox name. LibreWolf follows along the same path.
You don't have to use the exact same naming scheme. But even if you did it's pretty trivial to come up with better names. I bet even ChatGPT can do it. Here's the list it came up with for me:
Ok most are pretty trash but Stonehawk is good. Maybe Thunderwolf. Still better than LibreWolf.
don’t sleep on frost owl. Owl heads are kind of round so it would make a good icon.
…proceeds to not do it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You don't think Stonehawk is a better name than LibreWolf? Kind of proving my point there.
No, I don't, does that also prove your point?
the largest problem with librewolf is the difficult pronunciation, I think, just as with forgejo. stonehawk is easy, as is not a terrible name either. maybe "stone" is not terribly interesting, though. but it still seems to be an improvement for me.
what is your take on it? why do you think it's not better?