Let's answer the branding question on Win32

[Sean Egan]

On 4/8/07, Ethan Blanton <elb at psg.com> wrote:
> Mark Doliner spake unto us the following wisdom:
> > I disagree a lot.  I don't think it's crappy, and I don't not like Windows
> > users.  Firefox doesn't call it "Winfirefox" or "Firefoxwin," and I don't
> > think we should do it either.  Treating Windows users like second class
> > citizens is demeaning to potential users and developers, and it hurts the
> > spread of open-source software.
>
> Oh, I think it should *officially* be Pidgin, but referred to as
> "Pidgwin" when a distinction is necessary.

Exactly. It seems like the situation should be exactly the same as it
is with "Wingaim" but with "Pidgwin" instead of Wingaim. The only time
a second class citizen sees "wingaim" is when the About box tells him
to visit #wingaim, or maybe there's still a plugin named "wingaim"? I
forget.

Anyway, occasionally we need to make a distinction between the two
platforms as they certainly are quite different. Just as "Wingaim" is
easier to refer to than "The win32 build of Gaim," "Pidgwin" is easier
to refer to than "the win32 build of Pidgin," and more fun to say than
"Winpidgin."

It doesn't really seem like there's much of a change.

-s.

PS I thought we all agreed that Pidgwin (the client, not the name) is
sub-optimal, basically akin to running Gaim on OSX with X11, but with
a theme that handles the look-and-feel somewhat decently.