On Thursday, August 21, 2014 02:18:29 Stephen Farrell wrote:
Personally, I think the probability that we suddenly discover
any significantly better term is negligible. Not because OS
is super-good, but rather because nothing is super-good. And
good-enough should be good-enough here.
In fact, I'd say so its so negligible that attempting to find
such (yet again, maybe for the 8th time?) is counterproductive.
But that doesn't stop folks genuinely trying seemingly, I guess
its too tempting a windmill at which to tilt;-)
But I'd appeal to others to consider this before they chime in
here: is your suggestion really that much better that everyone
will immediately say "yeah, that's the one we wanted!"? If not,
them maybe there's not much point in suggesting it.
S.
I think -03 was an improvement over -02, but I think we're in danger of
regressing. I was able to find time to give the diff of the rewritten draft
someone posted a quick read and my overall impression was that it did not
represent progress.
That's an overly terse comment for the amount of effort that went into it, but
that's all I have time for.
I think -03 does a reasonably good job of describing OS and we should call it
mostly done.
Scott K