[oshug] Open (Source?) Hardware.

Andrew Back arback at computer.org
Fri Aug 19 07:59:59 UTC 2011

On 19 August 2011 08:50, Jeremy Bennett <jeremy.bennett at embecosm.com> wrote:

> Keep it as OSHUG. It is important to be explicit that the source is
> open.

I get the "source" argument, but also Bruce does make a good case for
not including this.

I wasn't suggesting changing the name of the group. Just interested in
further opinions on this debate.

> From a "neophyte" perspective, you have the advantage that OSHUG can be
> pronounced (o-shug) more easily than OHUG. Particularly after a few
> beers, when it would become o-shug anyway :)

Indeed, and this was a consideration when trying to think of a name
(ease of pronunciation with or without imbibing).

> In any case, changing a name that has already gained some "market"
> credibility is a bad idea. You'll spend the next 5 years answering
> questions about what the connection between OSHUG and OHUG is. There are
> far better ways for you to spend your time!

Ah, this was never the idea and apologies if it appeared as though I
was suggesting this as a possibility. I'm more interested in the
general debate. The name of our group isn't so important, but naming
could have bigger implications for the wider movement, e.g. in terms
of fostering understanding and its "brand".



More information about the oshug mailing list