The technical people managing the repos might just be opposed to name changing in general (seeing how a boatload of links, references, documentation would require updating, some of which you don't even control), and meanwhile those people might feel the "misbranding" drawbacks much less (if at all).
"It's hard!" So? "It's complicated" So? "Some of it other people control." This will always be the case, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.
If the status quo means a worse project, then you're not changing because you don't WANT to, not because it's a good idea. And that's an emotional, not logical ,decision.
> I would categorize all those as emotional reasons not to change, not logical reasons.
Ignoring for a moment the annoying software engineer tropes of "emotional=bad, logical=good" labeling and its unawareness of the fact that logic and emotions are hopelessly enmeshed; deciding what work to prioritize how you spend your limited time does not seem particularly "emotional."
So there's no point in wasting time on this, if perceived problems are low or nonexistent. Current maintainers probably look at it from a technical pov "it's just a name, who cares"
This cannot be, naming things is one of the two canonical hard problems.
My point is that from a developers PoV, renaming is not an evident net-gain at all-- might be seen as pointless branding busywork that leeches ressources from "actual" problems.
That is not "being emotional", it's just different priorities.
It seems to me like you're viewing the playing of politics as a no-brainer, which is a very different mindset from a Linux contributor. I don't think people get into kernel maintenance to play politics.
“My approach is technically correct and I won’t change it even though it causes issues down the line”. I’ve seen this a lot in the Gnome/Wayland world.
> I don't think people get into kernel maintenance to play politics.
I’m not a kernel developer and the projects I’ve worked on haven’t even been that big, but even there it was necessary to cater to multiple stakeholders and consider multiple viewpoints. I’d go as far as saying that software development in general gets pretty political pretty quickly, as soon as you depend on somebody else’s work or somebody else depends on yours. Every decision will impact somebody and different options will do so differently - these are political considerations.
I can’t imagine this being less of an issue in the kernel.
So it will take valuable developer time that might be better utilized to work on something else. And even if they do rename it, there isn't any guarantee that the other vendors would then agree to collaborate.
comparing the cost (difficulty, complications, etc.) against the benefit of doing something before doing it seems quite logical.
It’s probably down to one underappreciated Linux dev somewhere who is tired of the debate and spends their time fixing actual bugs.
Ignoring what "legally" forced entails, and just focusing on the mechanics of renaming stuff: Even if your code base can be updated with a simple "s/old/new/" regex (and, IME, this never, ever works as well as you thought it would, and always creates a long tail of manual grepping and editing), you still have to fix the docs, deal with breaking API changes, support multiple versions, provide upgrade paths, deal with confused users, etc. etc. etc.
And, um, confusingly, the examples you cite are actually even more complicated and work-intensive than what is being talked about in this article, because they also require URL / domain name updates, legal document changes, regulatory filings, etc. etc.
TLDR: the contention that "name changes happen easily" is not an accurate description of the situations you are citing.
Otherwise it would have been smoother
Considering how much effort we had to out into fixing pipelines because of hardcoded scripts, and the lack of good reason to do it its no surprise that it was scoffed at. White keyboard warriors needed to make a change, but couldn't do anything meaningful as it would require actually doing something.
At least this change makes sense.
It certainly helped GNOME whom was one of the biggest proponents /s
I'm generally in favor of DEI, btw, so you can lose me with your bigotry.
Signed, the guy who will forever believe GIMP could have been a contender with a name change decades ago.
This was something I knew to be true in my much more limited circle, but I very much appreciate the real life bigger example.
It still is a contender for image editing programs, for limited photo retouch, for very limited drawing (draw a rectangle outline without googling?) I use LibreOffice Draw for that.
It was long after university after I learned that it's also an English word.
But again, the people who gave the name to the project deliberately chose it because they found its slight offensiveness to be funny.
They knew what they were doing and chose to continue to do it anyway.
To summarize, it's not e.g. about me being personally offended -- it's about people like me (a long time ago) wanting to show people this great software and other reasonable people seeing the name, understanding the meaning, and reasonably thinking "If this software were actually good, why does it have such a ridiculous and often offensive name?"
An unserious name -- literally chosen to be an edgy joke -- projects "unserious software."