The hundreds of spammers with a .br address.

Or even "Mozilla Web Browser" and "Mozilla Mail". *Mozilla* is a great name, and as I understand it, the trademark battles there have already been fought and won -- or at least settled.

Boring is good.

The problem is that with open development the difference between codenames and branded Names(TM) becomes muddled. If it were just the developers using the name we could call it the Phalus project. The developers of every project could call their project Phalus. Codenames can be cute and they can be reused by everyone within a known context. If I address my wife as "Dear" it does not confuse your wife whom you call "Dear." In fact we can sit at the same table and do it and no one will be confused. However, if I start asking you to tell "Dear" to come home for dinner, you'd be confused. "Just download Dear. It's smaller and faster than my wife, Susan." I managed to miss the first set of nominations. If we need a new set of names I volunteer Web-Lizard and Mail-Lizard as not nearly as confusing as firebird and thunderbird which I will always think of as cars. I can't remember which is which project anyhow. Are they sufficiently cute?

move along.

they didnt need an excuse, there is nothing wrong with it.

They were just as unimaginative when they chose it in the first place.

Boo hoo.

Well, interestingly, Firebird is also a BBS! But no, it can't be, because the DB that came AFTER it swiped its name! Funny, there's also other Firebird software projects. But oh, they'd better change their names to make the DB folks happy!

This is just nonsense. I hope one day soon y'all will get sick of banging your head against a wall - because that's what you're doing - and go home.

Your damage paragraph sounds a lot like confusion to me. You need to chill and think logically.

If a Firebird RDBMS user is stupid enough to post a bug on Mozilla's bugzilla, they shouldn't be a Firebird RDBMS user. 99.999% of those interested in databases that use Firebird RDBMS are very computer literate and probably just about all of those could be classified as a computer geek. I would hope for the sake of Firebird RDBMS' users everywhere that their users could tell where the hell to post a bug and the difference between a website for Mozilla and a website for Firebird RDBMS. If they can't, they need an IQ test and should stop using computers.

As for Mozilla users (current and protential), the media, download sites, etc. will all use the name "Mozilla Firebird." Google searches for "Firebird" will probably result in the Mozilla web site and Firebird RDBMS web site sharing the top 2. Clearly labeled (which would be good anyways even if their names were totally different to ensure that they appear in the releveant searches), both web sites could never be confused as supporting a different project then what they really support. If a user really knows what they are looking for, a proper search query will result in links that are almost 100% releveant.

There won't be any ports or any stuff like that. It is just a name, if that causes someone to run their own port of Mozilla Firebird, they are welcomed to do so but I count the number of users who will care in the single digits. They can cry in their own little corner of the world.

I guess it makes a big difference when I spell it right. Now Google has a whole shit load of hits. Oh well. In search of something unique, something Mozilla.

I don't understand what you're suggesting.

Surely if mozilla is going to be split up into standalone parts, one of which is "firebird", then the *last* thing you want is to have to *always* stick the word "mozilla" in front of it to disambiguate.

For the same reason that I don't say "mozilla chatzilla" to refer to my IRC client of choice, and why I find it annoying to refer to "mozilla mailnews" or "mozilla browser" to refer to my mail client and browser. I'd much rather refer to just "chatzilla", "thunderbird", and "firebird". Especially when these are distributed as standalone packages and not one monolithic source tarball.

I don't say "KDE Konqueror" or "OpenOffice OpenWriter" or "Microsoft Internet Explorer" (usually) or "Sun Java". Why force me to use an unnatural way of speaking when I want to refer to Mozilla's browser?

My problem with firebird isn't to do with trademarks or the theory that it will confuse users of either product. My problem is that it creates a naming conflict in my own brain and forces me to always have to be explicit about which one I mean, whether in my own thoughts or when I'm talking or writing to others. And it's *not* always obvious from context: I write database-driven server-side web applications, and if I'm asking in a public forum about a particular problem I'm having and they say "are you using Firebird?", the question could legitimately refer to either product. I can certainly think of situations where it's not obvious whether a problem is on the server or client side (eg if the page load simply hangs on a particular operation). I don't use either of those products for development now, but I do use mozilla as my primary browser and I guess I'll be moving to "firebird" when it becomes the main recommendation of the mozilla project, and it's not inconceivable that I'd move to an open source database in the future.

I'm not saying Mozilla doesn't have a legal right to use the name. I'm not even saying that Mozilla doesn't have a moral "right" to use the name, although I think that's questionable, and I'd hoped when the name was first mentioned that the existence of a conflict would cause Mozilla developers to take the common sense approach of just picking another name. I just think that the Mozilla project should be more courteous to another open source project and take community feelings into consideration when picking a name. That's all.

(As I said before, I have a longtime involvement with mozilla and some code checked into it, and have never even USED the FireBird database. So my natural bias goes towards Mozilla, not the other firebird project. Historically I've usually watched (and occasionally, by advocacy, helped) mozilla make the "right" decisions, technically, ethically, and otherwise. I'm just disappointed that this time they appear not to be doing so, and I hope they'll still change their minds.)

I don't think you actually went through that....

a) I myself, never heard of any contest for the name. That probably means you decided it among you the developers mainly. b) There was no poll to choose the best name c) You didn't check if the name actually existed.

So... _what_ from the suggestion that I gave was actually the thing that you went through? Sorry to say this, but nothing.

Actually, if you went through a nightmare, that's because you didn't do it open enough. People would have noticed this problem earlier. There would be better and more choices to choose from, and you wouldn't have to decide it yourselves. People would choose, letting you with the only strong "effort" of announcing it.

Please notice that I have nothing against mozilla. I'm daily user of mozilla, and sometimes phoenix. But I think this is clear:

If you don't change the name, I smell trouble:

*Two projects with the same name=flamewars *Mozilla has been already rated down enough for the bad management, so I don't think more flames is necessary especially at this moment *People is getting annoyed, that Mozilla is still called "Mozilla", Phoenix is still "Phoenix" and you are already flaming, when nobody still has changed the name.

I find this pretty stupid, even more than what XFree guys are doing right now. If you find them stupid, think why, and then look at yourselves.

There are many more names, better ones. This is a nonsense war that is just damaging your image all over the Open Source community.

"There is no more blind than the person who doesn't want to see"

Regards

U.

A troll would be an attempt merely to garner responses and I don't give a rat's ass. To tell the truth, what I hate is all the OSW's (open-source weenies) constantly harping on the evils of very big, and very proprietary, business when, as soon as the opportunity arrives, they use the same tactics in their own project management, which is every bit as rude and inconsiderate as when the large companies do it. However you slice it, however it's justified, it just comes down to "we did it because we frickin' could, live with it".

My ass has more moral superiority.

> And actually, Firebird has a lot to do with a flaming avian, i.e. a Phoenix, because it's a small, fast browser being raised from the ashes of the giganto, monolithic "everything and the kitchen sink"

In fact FireBird is even a more fitting name then that, since the evolutionists no longer speak of the Dinosaurs dying out, but instead evolving to smaller winged creatures aka birds.

Thus we have the big lizard evolving into the small agile bird... and even in the form of a firebird (aka phoenix) rising from the very ashes (code) of the big dino.

I have a hard time imagening a name that would be more fitting the firebird (and other bird's for other moz components).

>Those are just names to give them for now while they are being developed...

So why don't you write it down in your dear webpages? This would definetely stop all the flamewars!

Please write it down in www.mozilla.org and www.mozillazine.org

I bet you'll stop this thing, and the whole community will kiss you guys (And I should also, since I wouldn't like that awful name :-)

If this is the case, I have to conclude that mozilla.org has serious communication problems.

The last two major announcements about the Mozilla project both caused major confusion, and now public uproar.

First, there was the XPFE vs Toolkit thing in the roadmap, which - as I recall - not even some Mozilla developers understood completely.

Now, Firebird vs Firebird.

As I see it, the root of the problem is inadequate communication by mozilla.org. Public announcements should be made totally unambiguous. The writers of such announcements shouldn't assume anything about the reader's knowledge about the projects mentioned.

In the first case the writer (Brendan Eich, if I recall correctly) assumed everybody knows exactly what Phoenix is, used the term XPFE, which is just about the most ambiguous term in the history of Mozilla, and used the term Toolkit without adequately defining it. Most people, including me, have thought XPFE was just an umbrella term for XUL+JS+XPCOM, and the roadmap lead quite a lot of people to believe that these technologies are going to be abandoned.

Now, the name Firebird was announced by Asa Dotzler without pointing out that it's just a codename. The announcement should have explicitly mentioned the Firebird RDBMS project, and that there will be no confusion in the future, because for mozilla.org Firebird is just a codename like Seamonkey that isn't used in public releases at all. Mentioning the name suggestion thread, the MozillaZine poll, and how they've influenced the decision (if at all) would have also been advantagous.

So in my view, Mozilla.org should really be more careful when writing public announcements. Perhaps review from non-developers would help avoid confusion and outrage.

Gabor Bukovics

PS. This was meant to be constructive criticism. I apologize if it didn't come through as such. I have the utmost respect for everyone I'm "blaming" in this post and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank them for their work. And I know quite well that you have absolutely nothing to do with this, Boris. :)

>Those are just names to give them for now while they are being developed...

I got the same impression from a number of Asa's postings. It seems that 'Firebird' to-be-brand does not play significant role in planned mozilla.org promotion strategy. But there's the point I'm not getting - if this is going to be just an internal codename, why not simply change it, putting an end to this regrettable conflict within the free software community? Probably, the issue could be resolved simply by communicating in clear and unambiguous way the idea of 'internal codename only' to the Firebird DB guys and to the rest of the world. But if it won't, setting personal and collective egos aside, I see no rational reasons for not changing the name. I personally would consider this as a sign of wisdom, not weakness.

I'm quite a pro-Mozilla guy. In my spare time I've translated 90% of Mozilla help to Russian and written a couple of articles about it. I don't have anything to do with Firebird DBMS. And it is my honest belief that it is mozilla.org - my favorite free software project - that would benefit from stopping this conflict ASAP.

But don't the db guys already have aproduct called "FirebirdExplorer"?

-bZj

Asa - since you will not answer my private email, I will try again here. I have a meeting with customers I have been trying to convert to Firebird from SQLServer - I've been at it for 6 months. OK the publicity is good, BUT if the conflict had not been reported, then I could have been in a position where the people I am talking to say "Firebird" isn't that the new Mozilla browser" YOU may not have a problem there but I do. DID you even bother to search for a conflict before using the name, or have all the other objections you now raise been found since this blew up? I am happy with Firebird and will continue to use it. I've 20 years of my live saved because it came into existance - because Borland were going to kill Interbase, and if I get any problems because of you using the name that I will deal with them at the time, but some common curtisy would not go a miss.

"Firebird is a commonplace English word"

What does firebird mean then?

I'd also be happy to be added to that list - lester@lsces.co.uk - at least anybody who mails me direct will get an answer - I'm still waiting for a number from Mozilla members!

I haven't seen you really *answering* the questions presented. Most of your answers are:

1. It's changed. Deal with it. 2. You should have been involved in the renaming process. 3. Those guys are just whining. 4. We want Firebird to get people 'excited' about the browser.

None of those points answers my particular questions. Except partially #4.

First off, I think this is more an issue of developers not handling public relations issues very well. If firebird is a codename, SAY that publicly. Make the 'release' name Navigator. Get it posted on Slashdot - they'd take it right now, I guarantee. Isn't everyone happy now? Developers can call it firebird in private, but in public postings and releases it's called Navigator - projects do this all the time. Most people *don't* think Firebird is a codename just because the only place it seems to be stated as such is in a response to a response on a message board. Don't expect most people to read every message in a 200 message forum all the time. Everything I've seen that is publicly viewable says that it's being renamed. Period.

Second, you are part of a larger community, and you should respect others in that community. It's not fair to say that "only those who actively participate in Mozilla's development" have a right to comment about the name. Most people DIDN'T know that the names were being changed, and it WASN'T highly publicized. (i.e. I don't remember any mention of it on the Mozilla web site, and I check Mozillazine a couple times a week so I may have missed it.) Thus it's unlikely that the FirebirdSQL folks could have known about the name change or objected at the appropriate time. I'm not saying you need to make sure Slashdot knows of the renaming, but I also don't think it's fair that you say 'too late, it's done' when the Firebird folks object to the name change. Corporations take these kinds of issues seriously, in part because they know it's actually a nice thing to get along with the community and not act stubborn and arrogant. The Mozilla community should also try a little harder to play nicely with others in the open source community. (Even if the initial response by the FirebirdSQL/IBPhoenix folks was somewhat immature - you are right that some people are simply 'jumping on the bandwagon' - it has nothing to do with their original objection.)

Third, making the name change suggested for the 'public releases' lets everyone go back to their business, including coding Mozilla. I think that they can still have their codenames and be 'fired up'. Heck, regardless of the name, there's a major change going on so I think they will be fired up regardless. To not change the name is to simply keep the argument going. Why? To spite the FirebirdSQL/IBPhoenix developers for their immature response? The name change is not earth shattering, and I think it is actually a safe move as Netscape has had those names for a very long time without problems. So why not? Why keep this issue alive? I still don't get it, even after reading through your responses to the many issues posted.