Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 16:41:53 +0800 (HKT) From: John Beukema <jbeukema@hk.super.net> To: David C Ferovick <ferovick@runner.jpl.utsa.edu> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: A "FreeBSD" Daemon Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950327164118.27025A-100000@is1.hk.super.net> In-Reply-To: <9503242047.AA17184@runner.utsa.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Same here once On Fri, 24 Mar 1995, David C Ferovick wrote: > > > > > I agree. Out of the three, I would say "NetBSD" has the nicest ring > > > to it. "FreeBSD" and "Linux" don't have that "professional" sound to > > > them. I suppose you could go around telling everyone not to judge a book > > > by its cover, but it would be easier just to come up with a nicer cover. :) > > > > I'd say we've already got far too much brand identification with the old > > name. Trying to change it now, after almost 2 years, would be hellish. > > No thank you! :-) > > > > Jordan > > > It would be hellish, but I am sure that you could gain alot from it. > I have had three different chances to run FreeBSD on systems in the past, > to support a commercial userbase, and each time I was forced to choose > NetBSD or BSDI instead, because the people involved didn't think it was > a good idea to run a OS with the word 'Free' in it when you are charging > people to use it.. I'm sure this argument is much more widespread than > just the three incidents I am talking about. > > Dave Ferovick >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.950327164118.27025A-100000>