You've never asked for a cola? I have - it basically means that I don't care which I get...
If I asked for Windows or Lindows, I don't think there would be any confusion. If I referred someone to windows or lindows, I don't think there'd be any confusion. The similarity in the names merely brings a passing smile...
... ummm... mebbe I'm missing something in all of this, as I seem to be one of the minority who can clearly see and hear the difference, so feel free to ignore me:-).
In Belgium there is a popular chocolate confectionary with the name Leo. The other day I saw a very similar product called Ole sold in a local supermarket...
Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola have a whole word in common in their brand names.
Then there's examples from the UK - the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland.
I could probably go on, but I won't - we've never cared in the past (ok - I'm pretty sure the Colas did), but the precedents for similarly sounding names for companies and products has been with us forever... why should this one be treated differently? If they were identical (on paper or phonetically), I might agree but they aren't, so I find it hard to think of this in anyway but cynically - another example of a corporation tying up court time... (don't the courts have better things to do? sheesh)
... I've probably been trolled here, but it was the early and confused modding of others that prompted me to respond to this. Personally, I would have just modded this down if there was an option for 'misinformed' or 'just plain wrong'.
Consumers don't buy software; people aren't paid to write software for the sake of writing software.
Consumers buy services and products; people are employed to provide services and products.
Software is a means to these ends, but it is not the end.
Open source provides the ability for companies to focus on the products and services they wish to sell, and employ people who specialise in those areas, rather than having or paying a bottom heavy and expensive zoo full of code monkeys. Think of all those things you need to do take a product to market - product design, research and development, support infrastructure, documentation, advertising etc etc.
You might want to rephrase your comment and say 'worse for programmers'.
But even then, if you're a company that relies on open source and is profiting from it, you would do well to remember that it's only going to work if those open source projects are maintained and supported... solution? You fund the open source projects - you don't employ people specifically, they're free to be funded by many companies and they're free to walk away too, while still leaving the option for others to take over and compete.
Sounds like a good thing for the economy (and even for programmers) if you asked me...
Slashdot Mirror
You've never asked for a cola? I have - it basically means that I don't care which I get...
... ummm... mebbe I'm missing something in all of this, as I seem to be one of the minority who can clearly see and hear the difference, so feel free to ignore me :-).
If I asked for Windows or Lindows, I don't think there would be any confusion. If I referred someone to windows or lindows, I don't think there'd be any confusion. The similarity in the names merely brings a passing smile...
In Belgium there is a popular chocolate confectionary with the name Leo. The other day I saw a very similar product called Ole sold in a local supermarket...
Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola have a whole word in common in their brand names.
Then there's examples from the UK - the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland.
I could probably go on, but I won't - we've never cared in the past (ok - I'm pretty sure the Colas did), but the precedents for similarly sounding names for companies and products has been with us forever... why should this one be treated differently? If they were identical (on paper or phonetically), I might agree but they aren't, so I find it hard to think of this in anyway but cynically - another example of a corporation tying up court time... (don't the courts have better things to do? sheesh)
... I've probably been trolled here, but it was the early and confused modding of others that prompted me to respond to this. Personally, I would have just modded this down if there was an option for 'misinformed' or 'just plain wrong'.
Consumers don't buy software; people aren't paid to write software for the sake of writing software.
Consumers buy services and products; people are employed to provide services and products.
Software is a means to these ends, but it is not the end.
Open source provides the ability for companies to focus on the products and services they wish to sell, and employ people who specialise in those areas, rather than having or paying a bottom heavy and expensive zoo full of code monkeys. Think of all those things you need to do take a product to market - product design, research and development, support infrastructure, documentation, advertising etc etc.
You might want to rephrase your comment and say 'worse for programmers'.
But even then, if you're a company that relies on open source and is profiting from it, you would do well to remember that it's only going to work if those open source projects are maintained and supported... solution? You fund the open source projects - you don't employ people specifically, they're free to be funded by many companies and they're free to walk away too, while still leaving the option for others to take over and compete.
Sounds like a good thing for the economy (and even for programmers) if you asked me...