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?"

Comments

Oh come on,

[MoOsEb0y]

Isn't Ogg Vorbis original enough?

Re:Oh come on,

[Anonymous Coward]

>Isn't Ogg Vorbis original enough?

Yeah. Unfortunately it's also stupid sounding. An informal poll of 3 non-geeks near me agree.

Ease of understanding

[ObviousGuy]

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.