Deviation on Application Names

Yes, that is the actual name of the software, in spite of Gnome changing over to try to Be Like Windows and name it... "Files."

1 Like

Ah nice, now this completely makes sense. That is way I could not find Nautilus in the program list. Fully clear!

I honestly got nothing against that considering a friend of mine searched for it until after an hour he contacted me

It gets problematic to name everything by the job it does.
Shall we name each video viewer in numerical order?
Instead of having Totem (Gnome "Videos"), Mplayer, Parole, VLC...

There's an ICON for the file manager!
It shows you what it is.

I never said every program should do that lol
just that included ones should be easy to use, also, "Nautilus" is it's codename, technically not even the official name, same for GNOME Web, which's codename is "Epiphany" and so on

also also, Windows's Explorer is probably named Files as explorer just so happens to handle the entire UI as well, and what the user is consciously accessing is only, well, Files

Why would they have "Codenames?"

Gnome now has replacement apps for Gedit and GNOME Terminal...
and they named it:
Text Editor and Console respectively..Wow!

Although I don't mind this much. It is actually easier to understand what the app is for.
A man looking for a file manager would rather click on an app called "Files" than on "Nemo" or "Dolphin".

I see this points as reasonably valid. And yet... not so much... at the same time.

Parole is not clear in its name... yet no one... Not One Single person... Has ever posted asking how to open parole.
This is true for the vast majority of applications, many of which have names that do not clearly state what they actually do.
Some have clever names that hint at what they do.
Some that have blantantly obvious names, we discuss here.

I think it is mostly assumption that an easier to understand name is actually easier to understand.
It stands to reason that it would be... and yet...
People are not hopelessly lost trying to find the majority of apps out there... they are not only not banging down the doors demanding Obvious names for apps...
They are not even posting politely asking.

The assumption flies in the face of evidence and when that happens, we must be willing to examine our assumptions.

Because there is a darker purpose here...
It makes sense when you think about it...
Convince the users that they are dumb and that they need easy names. That we really are that dumb (In spite of the evidence). So dumb, they must trust you... let you control things...
Microsoft has been doing it for years. And here... We are here... To catch those that wish to get away from that treatment.

And here Gnome is - emulating that treatment.

It's like looking through a broken window, as the fractures split the image and you are not sure where is what anymore.
How much better it is, to see with clarity of vision.

Why do they have codenames? They don't. Nautilus is not a codename; it is the application name. It was always nautilus. It used to say Nautilus in the app menu. It's not labled that way anymore, but it used to be. And people found it just fine.
And if they changed it to "Files" then why is not "Files" in the terminal?

sudo -i


No? Why wouldn't that be adjusted to reflect the current name? It makes no sense. Unless...
This disparity stands again - let the people believe they are Too dumb.
Avoid the terminal. It's confusing... and scary...

Not me, baby!

I encourage the use of the terminal every chance I get.

People might post confused asking how to open Nautilus when App menu only shows Files. But they don't even do that... They figure it out. Because people are smarter than that. We can help others to Believe in Themselves.
And should a person not realize what an app is by its name, it is not because they are dumb. It's just New and Unfamiliar, is all. Once it is familiar, their smarts are right back to working order again.
We can reinforce that confidence, not strip it away.

But there is no problem in naming an object to straightforwardly. That's my point. I don't know why they didn't change the name for terminal commands. They probably would do it later or they are too busy to do that (sarcasm alert!).

And although it isn't hard to find what an app does after opening it and tinkering it for sometime..It would be better to keep a name that is directly related to the app.
In KDE when you search "Files", "Dolphin" comes directly in the suggestions and this is a good thing, otherwise people would have to open every app and check which one is the file manager or have to try and recognize it by the icon.

Can you please mark @Aravisian's second post as the solution?

My point is that there is no problem in not doing so... and people are not clamoring for Dolphin or SpaceFM or Nemo or any other file manager to be renamed, are they?
My point is... there may well be harm in naming it straightforwardly. I defined that harm above.

1 Like

I don't think that is a "harm". Gnome should and can fix it anytime they want...Naming things straightforwardly can be done by anyone and if they don't want to...well, it's there software, they can name it anything they want. The fact that Gnome doesn't fix it does not meant that the "harm", as you state, is applicable to any app that has been named in such a way.

I think it is harmful to convince the users that they are not capable of even simple things. Then take that control... Microsoft as an Entity stands as Direct Testament to this - and it is why the majority of us are even here.

I don't think anyone is trying to convince the users that they don't have the calibre to understand what an app does. If any developer assign a software a name that is directly related to do what it does..It would only make things easier and less confusing.

I think we are deviating from the topic...might as well start a new thread or stop the discussion for now.
Edit: Wish was granted.

It comes down to Pattern Recognition and examining where those patterns lead...
Gnome Removal, in spite of user protests that fell on deaf ears over the years...

These patterns are undeniable and rejecting one part of the pattern just because it is easy to believe is what makes it so...

Yeah, but as I said...

1 Like

Fair enough. Correlation of Pattern Recognition is not convincing evidence.
But worthy of note and file away for future reference - to stay wary of what could be. :wink:

1 Like

gnome Backup = Deja Dup, is another example.

1 Like

Based on Duplicity... a clever name, really...
Some names do hint at what they do.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.