Summary of my arguments _pro_ name change

[Andrew Turner]

I don't think Jeff was suggesting there be two names, but rather that
the new name would reflect the increasing usability of Amarok for
non-KDE users (eg the ability to pick a browser without needing the
whole of KDE installed).

I think mention of possible non-KDE versions is probably not helpful
though, as that could start a completely different argument.

Andrew

On 02/06/06, Nick Tryon <dhraak at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/2/06, Jeff Mitchell <kde-dev at emailgoeshere.com> wrote:
> > This is actually important if we're serious about making a QT4-only version
> > and a KDE-enhanced one.  People might be willing to use it if it uses QT, but
> > not if it uses KDE -- one package vs. many huge monolithic ones.  This might
> > also be important as we go forward with a Windows/Mac port.
>
> So Amarok/amarok = Qt4-only version and amaroK = KDE-based version?
> As appropriate and/or nifty as this might be, it seems to me like it'd
> be even more confusing than the current situation.
>
> Out of curiosity, what do the usability experts say?  Would this fall
> in their domain at all?
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok mailing list
> Amarok at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok
>