The rationale is interesting. I'm glad they kept the logo as it's recycling ♻️

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 4 hours ago (7 children)

i don't get it. their previous name was way better.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

    Have you read the article? If yes which aspects so you disagree with?

    Edit: I don't want to change the original, but I didn't mean "did you read the article" as smart assert but as "is that a taste statement or something in relation to what they wrote?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

    yes i did read it. the original name had pretty good recognition among linux nerds already, it's kinda long but usually shortened as pmOS so i don't see how problematic that is.

    and the new name just seems too generic/unmemorable.. imagine you hear "postmarketOS running on Galaxy S10" and you instantly know its some alternate OS ported to that phone unlike "Nura on Galaxy S10". It doesn't even have "OS" in the name..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

    No? It wasn't? "The OS for your e-waste" isn't a good name for an OS this good. Also the old name was long, and with Google riling up FOSS advocates and annoying a good portion of normal users with their recent decisions, this is the perfect wave of criticism of Android and endorsement of alternatives to ride with some marketing.

    I'd say the logo needs a redesign too.

    edit: after reading the article, I think "Nurag" or "Nuragh" would've been better, but anything is better than the old name IMO.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments