Honestly the name TrueOS sounds incredibly condescending. The implication that they’re the One True Operating System probably isn’t going to sit well with people who don’t care for it, or think their operating system is better.
But also, what metrics are they using to make themselves stand out and more true than any other operating system?
I’m surprised no one bothered finding out why they chose the name. Even if that won’t make it a better name, it’ll still give us some actual insight beyond just back-and-forth sharing of speculation and opinions.
I found the explanation on the subreddit. I couldn’t really find any useful way to pare it down in order to include it inline, so just click on the link to read it.
Thanks for that! They should feature the explanations more prominently.
I think this is an absolutely silly criticism, and getting up in arms about someone being condescending when you haven’t even heard the developers reasoning isn’t helpful but to start a flame war. It could be referring simple boolean operations for instance. If you are going to criticize its name I think it would be better to point out that it’s name is completely ungoogleable and is a common term.
On face value, I’m inclined to agree with parent. To me, TrueOS makes it sound like it implies that ‘true’ is what it makes it stand out of other OSs. Are other OSs less or untrue?
But what is even more interesting is what made you choose to come up with this kind of rebuttal. You don’t accept parent’s opinion about the name sounding condescending, and the way you reply is by also making a condescending argument, but then towards his argument? What do you want to get out of this? That everyone has the same opinion as you? That no one forms an opinion purely because of a name someone chose? How is that a good thing?
err, I meant that I agree with the statement ‘TrueOS sounds condescending’ and where I said parent I meant grandparent. Stop the clock!
[Comment removed by author]
TerribleDontUseThisOS sounds like a good name for a pet kernel, or maybe even a non-pet ultra-serious operating system
Also make sure to adapt SHSC’s Usage section: https://github.com/skade/shsc#usage
Silly criticism or not, if someone comes across a system with that name without context, they’re going to have that opinion. In no way should anyone be required to understand why some developers or marketers picked a name. If you pick a name worthy of criticism when someone sees it without context, you should’ve picked another name.
The first impression of the name is the most valid one. If you have to give justification for the name for it to not sound terrible, then it is a terrible name.
Like if I name my OS “SHIT-OS” but then say “Oh but it’s an acronym for Supremely Hardened Intelligent Technical OS” that doesn’t make it any less terrible of a name.
TrueOS is a bad name.
We’re confident the TrueOS® name will allow people to quickly identify the project.
If someone was already involved in it, sure. Otherwise…
I have mixed feelings on the rebrand. PC-BSD was a bit abbrevation heavy, but you knew exactly what it was (BSD for PCs) just by the name. TrueOS could be anything. It kind of makes me think of that guy with mental disorders who wrote his own OS (I forget his name).
I wish they’d spend some more time on polishing the UI, including the logo. It looks like they tossed it together in 1998 and never bothered updating it.
TempleOS and I don’t think the comparison fits.
It’s not a comparison, the name just reminds me of TempleOS.
Reading it again, yes, I’m sorry that I jumped to that conclusion.
Referring to TempleOS.
Changing the name does make sense (I’ve never liked the name PC-BSD), but as a complete outsider I think they could’ve chosen a better name than TrueOS. Perhaps a community poll could’ve delivered something better sounding - TrueOS just sounds so horribly generic and it doesn’t really convey any information about what it is?