Let's answer the branding question on Win32

[Luke Schierer]

On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 08:06:18PM -0700, Sean Egan wrote:
> 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.

I still feel that this should be moved to the devel list now.

luke