> Wonder how many people who are up in arms about the name actually use GIMP?

I, for one, use it every day. Have you taken a look at the discussion? Your questions are pretty thoroughly addressed, which, along with your final line here, make me think you're more interested in your desire to use ableist slurs and the holy right of software maintainers to ignore any and all criticism without consequences than anything else.

Let us be clear: Nobody in this issue thread cares _at all_ about whether it was "meant" to convey the same meaning as the word "gimp". It is factually true that people find it awkward to recommend in professional settings because of its name, and sometimes the name makes adoption impossible.

Obviously nobody can force the maintainers to do anything, but we can _ask_ them to change a superficial component of their excellent software to make it much more useful, which is what this issue was.

For the vast majority of the non-English world, GIMP means nothing except what it stands for, and the same goes for me.

You have to note, "gimp" and "GIMP" mean completely different things.

For the vast majority of the non-English world, the acronym for a project called "C UNIX Networking Toolkit" doesn't mean anything but the project's name. That doesn't mean going around using that acronym is a good idea.

Have you considered that your example might be a really good idea? The same idea has been used as a highly effective tourism campaign: https://mashable.com/2016/11/06/cu-in-the-nt/

For majority of people who know english as a second language, ct is a familiar word, while gimp is not.

As for my personal experience, I can't even recall if I have ever encountered this word. (English is not my first language).

That particular word is a bit more ubiquitous even internationally so I'd say there's a huge difference.

So, great! We've agreed that there _is_ a line, right? A line after which a word is too offensive to too many people to use as a project name; a line over which it's sensible for your users to reasonably and respectfully ask you to change the name, and expect more than a "No. Closed." in response? And your argument is, GIMP doesn't go over that line?

Well yes, for me in California and much of the non-English speaking world, before this "issue" was brought up had no idea what "gimp" was. If anything, the pro-change side has done nothing except raise the awareness of the offensive term and we will likely see an increase in attacks using that term due to it.

I can't imagine changing the innocent name of my project because it happened to be a homophone of a mean word in some other language.

Except, you said you CAN imagine that. I just gave you an example of EXACTLY that and you agreed that it was too far. So, clearly, you have some kind of double standard here.

You're arguing in bad faith and it's making you look silly. Stop it.

Please don't cross into flamewar like this, regardless of how wrong or annoying other comments are. I realize that it's hard when you're arguing against a whole bunch of people—it can feel like you're surrounded by a mob. But situations like that make it more important, not less, to follow the site guidelines.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I most certainly am not arguing in bad faith. The last sentence is an utterance of my own personal feeling about things. But objectively I could see why the name of the other project you mentioned would be an issue. Regrettably, that term is a lot more well known and widely used and I accept why they would change it. I did not say I agreed with it and I especially do not here with GIMP. I am not able to morally justify forcing them to change their project name, since I really do not think of GIMP as anything other than the image editing program I've always used, like the vast majority of the world. I'm sorry that you and various regions of the U.S. are inflicted with such a slur to begin with.

> forcing them

Opening an issue is not forcing. It's asking. Do we at least agree there?

Sure, but you want them to do it right and are willing to fight for it right? If they end up having to do it due to those pressures, that is very much having their hand forced.

Do you also take offense on the word GNOME? which the dictionary defines as "a small ugly person".

How about DALCOP? Which means a particularly stupid person.

Apple (North America) an American Indian (Native American) who is "red on the outside, white on the inside". Used primarily by other American Indians to indicate someone who has lost touch with their cultural identity. First used in the 1970s.

No, the dictionary defines a gnome as "a legendary dwarfish creature supposed to guard the earth's treasures underground". You're using a variant definition. Gnomes as commonly understood are mythical (i.e. not real) creatures. I've never heard anyone be offended by "GNOME". You can't just make up offensiveness where none actually exists.

Contrast with the word "midget", which does refer to real people and is offensive, and would be a bad name for a software project. Same for "gimp".

I am not a native English speaker. I know the insulting meaning of "cunt" but not "gimp". I think this is the case for most people around me. That's the difference. You are trying to mix two different levels. I am not defending "GIMP is a fine name" since my English is not good enough. My reply just provides an evidence that your example might not be very appropriate here.

Totally! I agree that they're on different levels of international recognition. My point here is that siphon refuses to agree that they're even the same _kind_ of thing, which makes me think they're not interested in actually reaching a good compromise, for some reason, but just want to be right.

I couldn't even remember the offensive definition when I read the title. I only associate the name with the program. Language can mean whatever we want it to, and by admission that it's offensive, you make it offensive. Should a definition change in the future that makes "hacker" a negative word, should this social platform change their name? Or could we simply say that it has a different definition to us? Is changing the name of a product really just superficial, if the name is the primary way people recognize it is safe to use?

>Wonder how many people who are up in arms about the name actually use GIMP?

literally nobody but these people with way too much time on their hands. NOBODY IS OFFENDED BY GIMP, and if you are, WHO CARES