Why Such Unimaginative Nomenclature?
apoplectic asks: "Pick a word. A noun would be nice, but not required. Now, imagine a potentially meaningful adjective or other nebbish modifier, select the first letter, and append this to either the beginning or the end of the noun you originally chose. Some examples, include: JBoss, WebL, GStreamer, eMachine, iPod, and of course the XBox. I realize that the exceptions greatly outweigh this rule, but this does seem to be a disproportionately invoked naming standard that lacks a little 'je ne sais quoi'. Why is this so common? Do you really like this 'standard', or is this like something touched on by an episode of Futurama? Have, we have run out of names that have yet to be copyrighted, and all we are left with is Poppler -- or some hideous cryptic name from the aforementioned 'UName' naming standard. Why does it seem as if quite a few applications, along with many a geeky item, follow such unimaginative naming conventions?"
Isn't Ogg Vorbis original enough?
Name the application with an easily recognizable and appropriate name that briefly describes what the product does. That's good naming.
Coming up with obscure references to geeky things is not good naming practice.
I have been pwned because my
Make some new ones up. It doesn't matter.
... but humans interact in entirely arbitrary ways so ... just make up new words, people. Its easy!
I made up 'ampfea', and among our little group it has come to mean 'any meeting place for electronic artists'... we've had 8 meets since we started getting together for jam sessions, and 'ampfea' has started to take hold as a word in common use among our little crowd.
This whole iThing is just Madison Avenue counting on the memetic nature of human interaction
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --