From owner-freebsd-advocacy Fri Oct 30 02:52:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA17404 for freebsd-advocacy-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 02:52:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail2.svr.freeserve.net (mail2.svr.freeserve.net [195.92.193.210]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA17399 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 02:52:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from c.raven@ukonline.co.uk) Received: from modem-35.argon.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.8.163] helo=ukonline.co.uk) by mail2.svr.freeserve.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05iplimit-2 #4) id 0zZCAa-00087w-00; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:52:41 +0000 Message-ID: <36399A67.EDDE61EF@ukonline.co.uk> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:52:23 +0000 From: Christopher Raven Organization: CIAN X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2.7-RELEASE i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jason C. Wells" CC: Wes Peters , advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: What names? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jason C. Wells wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Wes Peters wrote: > > >Works with FreeBSD: An application that was not written for FreeBSD, but > > can be made to run on FreeBSD *reliably.* A FreeBSD > > port kit has been developed and posted on the FTP > > server that will install the application from a > > download or from vendor-supplied media. > > >Designed for FreeBSD: An application with FreeBSD binaries and a FreeBSD > > installation program, from the vendor. A FreeBSD > > port kit (created by FreeBSD volunteers) that auto- > > mates the install process in a "standard" installation > > MAY be available to simplify installation. > > I spawned this thread to brainstorn ONLY the names. (if such a thing is > possible) > > I like these two designations in their conception. The naming to me is > still a little bit off. The "Native" designation has been tossed about. > > So what wording do we all like for the two designations? > > I really like "Works with" because it says what it means. I say "Works > with" makes the cut. > > Of the "Designed for"/"Native" designations neither really strikes me as > catchy. If others really like one of these two, then let's hear it. Else, > I have urped up some ideas. Perhaps this thread will live a one iteration > life. We will see. > > So here is a complete brainstorm. Perhaps it will spark our imagination. > > 100% FreeBSD Compatible > FreeBSD Certified > Built for FreeBSD > Built with FreeBSD > FreeBSD Approved > Designed for FreeBSD > FreeBSD Native > Native FreeBSD > Perfect for FreeBSD > I Like FreeBSD > FreeBSD Software > FreeBSD Compatible Software > Use Me With FreeBSD > Runs on FreeBSD > > > I like the 100% FreeBSD Compatible as it has a degree of "certainness" to > it. It says what it means too. This software is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT > compatible. I think it also has a more distintion than "Works with". > > Just given this list with no replies from the list I say the two > categories should be: > > Works with FreeBSD <== IAW the above "Works with" > 100% FreeBSD Compatible <== IAW the above "Designed for" > Perhaps Freebsd Compatible would better lend itself to the "Works with", and FreeBSD native could stay for the "Designed for"? just my 2 pfenig's worth To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message