[Sussex] SLUGoppix : What's in a name

[Steven Dobson]

On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 12:47 +0100, Adam J Purcell wrote:
> I don't want to set things back at all but am I the only one that
> finds the name 'slugoppix' slightly, er, repulsive?!

Me, I like the name.

> Call it what we
> like internally but maybe something a little more approachable could
> be considered for the official name?  Obviously 'SLUG' is what we all
> tend to call the User Group (though we aren't the only group to use
> that acronym, there's also Sydney, Sun Coast, Silverlake, St. John's,
> Santa Cruz, Sarnia, etc. (at that's just on the first page of
> google)).  I'm not sure your average BCF attendee will remember or
> even immediately associate SLUG with us.

I agree with you that for the average BCFer the name is not important.
We could call it lsdffgbs and it wouldn't matter.

However I do think it is important to show the CD's roots, and therefore
I would like to keep the "oppix" part.  We are not, afterall, out be
build our own distorbution - just customise Knoppix to advertise the
club.

As we do refere to the club as SLUG (and I am well aware the SLUG is not
close to be unique amount the LUGs) I think that having SLUG in the CD's
name helps advertise the club better.

> How about something like 'Sussex Linux'?  Something like that, avoid
> jokey, avoid weird, avoid exclusive.  Something serious, you can
> trust, inclusive, a Linux for all - especially locals as they know it
> is made by people they can actually meet and talk to, not odd little
> nerds who will just tell you to rtfm!

"Sussex Linux" and the other suggestions are all abit to boring for me.
Our target market are hobbiest - and I think Slugoppix works well for
that.  In the BCF I've just returned from I don't think I once say this
is the KNOPPIX live CD.  I just called it a live CD and when on to
describe how to use it.  If someone was clued up enought to ask "Which
one?"  then I'd tell them, but otherwise the name is just not relavent.

So I vote to keep the name.  The only change I want to see is to make
the SLUG part stronger.  To that end I think we should call it: 

				SLUGoppix

Steve

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sussex/attachments/20060806/8421e398/attachment.pgp