← Back to team overview

elementary-dev-community team mailing list archive

Re: Changing the name of Pantheon Terminal


Hash: SHA1

For what I want, a terminal that has something to offer over its
coopedition deserves its own name as any other application, and there
are quite a lot of popular branded terminals out there. Even GNOME's
partition manager as a brand (palimpsest). You may be surprised because
this is not something you usually consider useful outside its own

Brands are essential to promote apps outside Pantheon. Remember that
users will install other applications. You can try to sell Midori as the
holy grail of internet browsing and yet some people will install
Chromium or Opera.

"generic names" is not a bad idea, but it simply doesn't work unless we
want to think about a locked-down system that doesn't allow other
applications. GNOME has in the past already confused users by using
ambiguous names ("text editor", "settings") and I've seen annoyed
discussions about Terminal vs. Terminal (if you can't guess, it was
GNOME versus Xfce in that case).

.desktop files can also contain a description and search keywords, so
typing "terminal" will open panther.desktop just fine and users who
don't care won't have to bother.

On 26.03.2012 18:19, Daniel Foré wrote:
> Yea I don't really see the point in trying to brand a terminal, tbh. As
long as it still says "Terminal" everywhere on the desktop thats cool
with me.
> I do think it needs to happen in the .desktop though because we do have
third-party launchers like Synapse or an app may show up somewhere
unexpected like the zeitgeist privacy plug. Suddenly you're trying to
patch a whole range of apps instead of fixing it at the source.
> El mar 26, 2012, a las 9:07 a.m., Cassidy James <c@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:c@xxxxxxxxxxx>> escribió:
>> I suppose it's something we should bring up in the Council for
discussion and a decision. We've talked about it before, but never
decided on anything specific.
>> To be honest, the "cool, unique names" have their place and can be
beneficial, but in the end you have to be sure that the user's
experience comes first. I guess I also just really don't see the need to
brand a terminal app; it feels like an unnecessary action (change for
the sake of change), something we typically try to avoid. In addition,
"Terminal" is typically the name for the system's terminal app and users
will probably expect it to be called that. On the other side, I'm not
really /entirely /against it; it's a power user app and they will
probably be able to find it.
>> I'd be interested in hearing feedback from Dan and others, though. And
like I said, we can discuss the issue specifically (along with the
broader topic of genericizing app names) in the next Council meeting
this coming weekend.
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Allen Lowe <lallenlowe@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lallenlowe@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> I disagree with Cassidy. I think the apps should definitely have cool
>> and distinctive branding (as most of our apps do), and then just
>> identify themselves generically in the launchers. That is how we have
>> been doing things for ages, and I think it works well.
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:32 AM, ?????? <shnatsel@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:shnatsel@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> > I beleive branding it as "Panther" is more likely to get it some
>> > market share outside Pantheon. I'm not sure if it's desired or not.
>> >
>> > I support using "Web browser" and "Mail" insted of "Midori" and
>> > "Postler" (or "Geary" or whatever the merged app is called now), but I
>> > don't think it should go that far. As I said before, you don't have to
>> > actually debrand apps; that will surely hurt their usage outside of
>> > Pantheon. I'm sure Slingshot one-liner and a Plank tweak will do the
>> > job well enough.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/