Of course it's silly - otherwise why would it be more fun to ask in public. However, there was a serious point to Ben's original message with which I agree: "So perhaps part of the future of desktop Linux will be for applications to start calling themselves by names (and icons) that are intuitive instead of inside jokes." One of the most difficult aspects that newcomers to Linux experience, I think, is figuring out what program they need to do what, and the naming conventions, while colorful and all that, don't help matters. So maybe what we need is an *up-to-date* list of open source software, what it's named, and what it does. Any time I've ever needed a Linux program to do something new, it's always a big Internet research project to figure out what the available apps are, even though they were probably already installed with my everything-including-the-kitchen-sink RedHat installation, and *that* is what is truly silly. Just my $.02. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: tclug-list-admin at mn-linux.org > [mailto:tclug-list-admin at mn-linux.org]On Behalf Of Florin Iucha > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 04:40:29PM -0600, Ben Stallings wrote: > > So why is it, exactly, that the KDE archiver program isn't > named archiver? > > Did its programmers start calling it "ark" to save the trouble > of pronouncing > > two extra syllables, or did an early release allow only two of > each kind of > > file? (I suppose I could write to the authors, but asking in > public is more > > fun. ;-) --Ben > > Ben, this is silly. > > florin