Why some names work better than other for attracting user to libre apps

Well I’m not sure but they say UNIX should be pronounced ’eunuchs’.

I agree with you completely.
Especially desktop environments tend to have terrible names for average user ("One DE that I can recommend is LXDE"... "LX...what?!"...."Yeah or what about XFCE?"....)
From a pure popularity point of view "gnu linux" is a terrible name and even "Debian" is not really something that catches much attention.
Ubuntu was a really good choice and trisquel is also not bad.

Seriously, I think the GNU Project should just change its name to something more catchy...

Good names are always a good idea, for sure. But there are tons of downsides to renaming an existing project, especially a long-standing one that has lots of users. It can cause all kinds of confusion and disruption, not to mention the effort involved in getting new domains, registering a new trademark, and changing all references to the old name.

FWIW, I think "Trisquel" is a good name, as are "PureOS", "Freenix", "Parabola", "Musix", "Dragora", and "Replicant", but the names of the rest of the libre systems... none of them are great. I also think that "Linux" is a good name, but agree that "GNU" is a crap name. And for the absolute worst examples of names, take a look at Kenta Cho's games (which are all really great, by the way); "A7Xpg", especially, is probably the worst name for anything I have ever seen, and for the life of me I can't remember which game it is.

Windows is a horrible name. It should be called Panes, pronounced 'pains'. I guess they like Win more as they want to be victorious. PYRRHIX?

I agree GNU is hardly palatable. They changed the name to 'Linux', which of course is a travesty and gives no credit to the GNU project. I propose a new name AGNUSTIX.

What about OS/2? What a strange name. H2O? OXYGENIX? AQUANIX?

On a more serious note, I admit old hacker culture based names or recursive acronyms fail to attract positive attention that the FS movement deserves. Brand names, unlike code names and in-house jokes that stretch developers' imagination, can catch the imagination of a generation and become generic.

> If projects want their free code software to be used by anyone other than groupies, they need to pick names that make their apps sound like finished products

>I agree with you completely.
Especially desktop environments tend to have terrible names for average user

You are both assuming a GNU user (which is by definition not dumb) is shallow enough as to judge a piece of software based on its name. Why?

I have been howling from the rooftops for a long time about counter-productive, self-defeating names in free software, based on various avoidable issues like being unnecessarily obscure, uninformative, distracting, controversial, and/or unappealing.

Such as when I criticized the name "Iceweasel":
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/development-trisquel-80-flidas-software-proposal-category-internet#comment-110868

"The word "weasel" in Iceweasel makes the name a problem. Weasels are unpopular animals, and one of the common definitions of the word "weasel" is of an untrustworthy, dishonest, even cowardly person.

"The issue of offensive, off-putting, confusing, obscure, or simply irrelevant names and/or logos in free software has long been one of my top pet peeves. We face so many barriers to a world of freedom, and then we impose self-inflicted ones too."

---

And "Claws" for an email client:

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/development-trisquel-80-flidas-software-proposal-category-internet#comment-110941

"Elaborating further on my previous response, I think Claws Mail also has an unnecessarily strange and off-putting name and logo.

"Claws are sharp instruments of imposing harm. In everyday speech, the word when applied to people is harshly negative: "Get your claws off my such and such." Having and using claws not only imparts characteristics like aggression, but is also dehumanizing. Why would anyone want to apply such things to himself?

"And then the logo. http://www.claws-mail.org/img/sc-bar-right.png

"A green, reptilian foot or hand bursting out from within a globe to grab some mail envelopes. Humans tend to be repelled by reptiles. And since the claws have done harm to the world in the picture, they were a sinister force lurking from within it before they emerged. Their grasp on the envelopes also seems to be aggressive, as if they are seizing someone else's mail.

"Finally, as if all that weren't enough, the official Claws Project website has this already-terrible logo over an even worse slogan or motto: "it bites!" Directly implying aggression and harm in any language, and in colloquial American English, also specifically implies that the product in question is of very bad quality!

"WHY do free software projects do this to themselves, and to the free software movement in general?!?

"At this point, discussion of Claws' limitations like inability to write HTML email, is superfluous."

----

And "Evolution" for another email client:

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/development-trisquel-80-flidas-software-proposal-category-internet#comment-110943

[...]

"If there's anything I would change in Evolution, it's the name, in keeping with my longtime gripe about free software projects making poor choices in their names and/or logos. While the Evolution logo is fine, the name, while not being as extremely bad as Iceweasel or Claws Mail, is still not as good as it could be. Yes, "Evolution" as a name can be defended on the grounds that it implies that it is being continuously improved upon, or that it is better than other programs. However, it does not convey what the program does, and also introduces an unnecessarily distracting and divisive element: the evolution vs. creation controversy.

"I hasten to state that I ACCEPT the scientific mainstream on evolution AND DO NOT agree with creationism. PLEASE DO NOT waste everyone's time by denigrating me on the assumption that I'm a creationist, or by denigrating / dismissing creationists or posting refutations of creationism.

"But advocates should not underestimate the importance of this issue. Gallup polling in the USA http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx shows that by far the biggest portion of US public opinion on this issue continues to believe that "God created humans in their present form" - a plurality of 42%, and has never been lower than this number. The next position, that "Humans evolved, with God guiding the process", is far behind at 31%. The idea that humans evolved, with God having no part in the process, is a tiny minority at 19%.

"My point is that regardless of how true evolution is and how wrong creationism is, and even granting that this is an important issue to debate and win on, the name of an Outlook-equivalent computer program is an inappropriate place to make that case, and also constitutes an entirely unnecessary self-imposed barrier to the adoption of this program specifically and even free software in general.

"Since one of the great benefits of freedom is the ability to just copy a program and change an aspect of it, even something as small as the name, I propose doing the same with the Trisquel version of Evolution. Call it "Overview", which is similar to "Outlook" and which would, like "Outlook", refer to a feature within the program where you can get an Outlook or Overview of your entire day, such as the most recent or important emails, and your upcoming tasks and schedule items. It still doesn't directly inform the viewer what it does, but the alliteration between "Outlook" and "Overview", plus the logo of an envelope and clock, will provide some big hints."

--

And for some positive feedback, my praise for the name and logo of "Abrowser":

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/development-trisquel-80-flidas-software-proposal-category-internet#comment-110944

"For the web, I advocate Abrowser simply on the basis of being a very straightforward, obvious name and logo without anything off-putting or requiring explanation.

"A web browser is the most important program in any operating system or distribution, which is reflected by the fact that nearly every one of them (including Trisquel) has the icon for its default browser immediately visible on startup / login, either on the desktop, in a dock, or in a panel, with no need to search for it or launch any menus. This makes the choice of name and icon for the web browser the most important of any application in the OS or distro.

"With that being the case, having the web browser be called "Abrowser" with an icon of a pointer on a globe (implying the world-wide web) is perfectly satisfactory."

I agree with pretty much everything in IrishUSA's rants, particularly this:

"And while quality and freedom are irrelevant to these marketing like concerns in the narrow picture and short run, it makes a difference in the big picture and long run. Free software should not be an obscure exclusive club of self-congratulatory insiders, but rather widespread and hopefully someday the norm."

I just want to qualify that I am talking about free code products (for lack of a better word) aimed at Jane Average end users, like noob-friendly OS distros, desktop environments, and user applications. It doesn't matter what database backends or libraries or protocols or other components that only geeks will deal with are called, the geeks will judge them on their usefulness regardless of name, and that's fine.

In that respect, the Debian browser being called IceWeasel didn't really matter, it was just a satirical hack to allow them to distribute a Firefox-based browser that complied with the DFSG. Unlike Red Hat or Ubuntu, Debian has always been for geeks, so it's name and the names of its components don't really matter [1].

QuantumGravity:
"Seriously, I think the GNU Project should just change its name to something more catchy..."

This was probably more a joke than a serious suggestion, but for the record, what I would suggest is that GNU Project make sure any new GNU programs they want Jane Average to use have sensible names. Actually a lot of them do; Mailman is very sensible, as is Ring [2]. Emacs and Guix, not so much, but those are geek-orientated projects, so again, it doesn't really matter.

I agree with onPon that changing the name of well-established projects can do more harm than good. But I have often thought about creating forks of free code, end-user apps that have a great back-end but a terrible UI and a silly name. GIMP, VLC, Evolution, ThunderBird, Claws, and many others could benefit from a UX makeover and a new name, while keeping exactly the same back end. This way you get both the benefit of better user-facing apps, and avoiding disruption to existing projects.

I would go so far as to say that every desktop app needs to be broken into separate back-end and UI components, with the back-end developed by engineers, and an API that you can use to plug-in one or more front-ends, developed by designers and UX gurus. These two aspects of app development require totally different sets of skills, and few people seem to be really good at both. How many websites have the same person designing the customer webserver *and* styling the CSS for the website? Very few.

SuperTramp83
"You can place the orange drumpf moron's face as logo and name it Hillary, I would still use it and be very happy about it."

As would I, but you seem to assume that most software users think like you and I. The fact that the vast majority of desktop users still use Windows in 2018 makes it clear that this is not the case.

"What about 'trisquel'? Surely a not 'popular' name, not even a good sounding one."

It's not the best name I've ever heard. But I can tell from looking at it how to pronounce it; like "sequel" but with "tris". At least it doesn't have an X in it for no sensible reason.

onPon:
"I think "Trisquel" is a good name, as are "PureOS", "Freenix", "Parabola", "Musix", "Dragora", and "Replicant",

I agree that Trisquel and Parabola are good names, and PureOS and Replicant are excellent names. But Musix and GeexBox? Why do people ever put X in the name of software? It looks wierd to non-geeks. How are they supposed to pronounce it?

Yes, anyone in the inner circle knows it's a reference to Linux or UNIX, but that's precisely what it's a bad name for any project trying to attract a user base of Jane Average folks. They don't know or care about UNIX and they never will, but they might use a user-respecting audio production OS or bootable media player OS (it doesn't really matter what Freenix is called because it's for geeks anyway).

Lodlier:
"Windows is a horrible name."

It's a horrible OS to use, but Windows was a very good choice of name. It's a familiar object, easy to read and pronounce, and a sensible metaphor for the system of frames surrounding desktop applications. You don't ever have to repeat yourself when you talk to someone about Windows.

I used to try saying "GNU-Linux" to people. But "GNU" and "Linux" are already awkward, unfamiliar words, when I mash them together, I might as well be saying "Goblin Eggs" for all the sense it makes. It just becomes a barrier to effective communication. I use the "GNU-Linux" convention when I'm writing, but I have to admit I just call it "Linux" when I'm talking to people.

SuperTramp again:
"You are both assuming a GNU user (which is by definition not dumb) is shallow enough as to judge a piece of software based on its name."

You are assuming that responding to what things are called is "shallow". If I invited you out for lunch and ordered you a Shit Sandwhich, would you feel enthusiastic about eating it? If not, is that because you are shallow? If it turned out to contain a range of fillings that you really enjoy, I might be able to convince you to try it, but I suspect it would take a lot more work than it would if it wasn't called a Shit Sandwich.

[1] Although at least it's obvious how to say "Debian".
[2] Just as well Tox didn't join GNU, that's a terrible name. You might as well call your chat program RancidMaggotyHumanFlesh.