From: Earnie B. <ear...@ya...> - 2002-09-30 14:24:09
|
I'm studying the verbiage on the front page and I see this "Minimalist GNU for Windows" and immediately think cut down, reduced, not as robust. Studying the dictionary for some other word that fits the "Min" portion of our name, I come up with two possible alternatives: minced (small pieces) or mingled (a combining of parts). So, we have "Minced GNU For Windows" or "Minglized GNU For Windows" or ... [ ] Can someone else come up with something better? [ ] Just leave it "Minimalist GNU For Windows". Thanks, Earnie. |
From: F. <j_r...@ya...> - 2002-09-30 15:36:35
|
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 10:24:45AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote: >I'm studying the verbiage on the front page and I see this "Minimalist >GNU for Windows" and immediately think cut down, reduced, not as >robust. Funny, I read "Minimalist" and I think light weight, the essencial, light fast... :) >Studying the dictionary for some other word that fits the "Min" >portion of our name, I come up with two possible alternatives: minced >(small pieces) or mingled (a combining of parts). So, we have "Minced >GNU For Windows" or "Minglized GNU For Windows" or ... Minced gnu... hmmm, perhap it's not bad as a new kind of hamburger! > >[ ] Can someone else come up with something better? > >[*] Just leave it "Minimalist GNU For Windows". > I don't have strong feeling about this. IMHO, the reasons behind the original naming are still there: MinGW does not provide a bloated POSIX compatibility layer targeting native Win32 binaries instead. But I confess the main reason I like "Minimalist GNU for Windows" is because of the long time now that I hear and say it. It's like David Dawes said in a interview, http://www.cat.org.au/maffew/cat/xfree-dawes.html#future , about why keep the 86 in XFree86 - "That's part of our history". Jose Fonseca |
From: Earnie B. <ear...@ya...> - 2002-09-30 15:57:06
|
Jos=E9 Fonseca wrote: > = > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 10:24:45AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote: > >I'm studying the verbiage on the front page and I see this "Minimalist= > >GNU for Windows" and immediately think cut down, reduced, not as > >robust. > = > Funny, I read "Minimalist" and I think light weight, the essencial, > light fast... :) > = It's become more than "Light Weight" and I've never consider anything Win32 "light fast". > >Studying the dictionary for some other word that fits the "Min" > >portion of our name, I come up with two possible alternatives: minced > >(small pieces) or mingled (a combining of parts). So, we have "Minced= > >GNU For Windows" or "Minglized GNU For Windows" or ... > = > Minced gnu... hmmm, perhap it's not bad as a new kind of hamburger! > = > > > >[ ] Can someone else come up with something better? > > > >[*] Just leave it "Minimalist GNU For Windows". > > > = > I don't have strong feeling about this. IMHO, the reasons behind the or= iginal > naming are still there: MinGW does not provide a bloated POSIX compatib= ility > layer targeting native Win32 binaries instead. > = > But I confess the main reason I like "Minimalist GNU for Windows" > is because of the long time now that I hear and say it. It's like David= > Dawes said in a interview, > http://www.cat.org.au/maffew/cat/xfree-dawes.html#future , > about why keep the 86 in XFree86 - "That's part of our history". > = Ok. Good point. Earnie. |
From: Jerry v. D. <jv...@at...> - 2002-09-30 21:59:08
|
Earnie Boyd writes: > I'm studying the verbiage on the front page and I see this "Minimalist > GNU for Windows" and immediately think cut down, reduced, not as The story of GNAT is that is started out internally as "Great New Ada Technology". When it became an offial name it was reinterpreted as "GNu Ada Translator". However, that became a problem as people though it translated Ada into C. So it was decided that GNAT would simply be a name. Why not the same for MINGW. Simply call it "Mingw GNU for Windows" and leave it at that ? -- -- Jerry van Dijk | email: jv...@at... -- Leiden, Holland | web: users.ncrvnet.nl/gmvdijk |