I have been doing some work on the wkipedia page and so have been doing my best to allow the natural charms of Genode show through the dry academic language needed for that site. As a result I am reading sentences out to myself to see if they satisfy.
With that in mind, and casting my mind back to when I first became aware of Genode, I think that name sounds high-tech. Sculpt by contrast did not sound especially exciting when I first heard the name, which is unfortunate because that is where novices should explore first.
I understand now why the reason it was so-called, but suggest Sculpt OS in practice is at odds with the popular idea of a sculptor. My brotherās partner is a ceramics sculptor so will actually mould bits of clay onto her works in the manner that Sculpt asks us to do with our desktops. But I think most people, when thinking sculptor, will think of someone like Michaelangelo, chipping away a big block of marble to reveal his masterwork. Michaelangeloās subtractive working is more like the experience of setting up Windows (so I am told!) where the user has to chisel the cruft off to get the usable desktop they want.
Building Sculpt in perhaps like nurturing something and making it grow the way you want. I thought of Germinate as a name, suggesting a sprouting seed (the Sculpt image is a mustard-seed sized 30Mb). And Genode Germinate makes a rather pleasing alliteration (in my mind at least).
Does anyone else have any thoughts about the name?
Fwiw, I agree. When talking about it to my friends I always say Iām messing around with Genode and not Iām messing around with Sculpt.
Perhaps thatās intentional, as my understanding is that Sculpt was originally a reference implementation and still is intended to be a base for your own experiments and not a single definitive build in the way Ubuntu is trying to be.
Otoh: I do like the ring of both together.
As in, not āSculpt OSā but āGenode Sculptā.
I think that is another problem I am experiencing when editing the Wikipedia. I am not aware of it being defined in one place how strictly these names ought to be used. Is Genode the āOS Frameworkā specifically, or is it an interchangeable term that might refer to the company, their framework, and desktop system, etc?
It must be noted such confusion does not seem to have done any harm to Linux which might refer to the kernel or GNU operating system! I am minded to apply the same terminology and refer to our personal OS as Genode/Sculpt.
I guess itās easier to āseeā for those whoāve been reading the C++ code and messing around with it As I see it, the terminology isā¦
Genode Labs (the company)
Genode [framework] (most of the github repo, except the Sculpt OS parts)
Sculpt OS (the part of the github repo that builds upon Genode to make it a usable OS : build scripts that configure the Genode components a certain way, C++ code for components that are specific to Sculpt OS, and so on)
Though the āborderā between the latter two could be called a little blurry in some cases. For example in h/g I use a (forked) sculpt_driver_manager component (if memory serves). Is it part of Genode proper, or of Sculpt OS ? The componentās name in github suggests the latter, but the fact I use it in a (wannabe) OS distinct from Sculpt, suggests the former.
To share a bit of perspective, we never really thought through the name of Sculpt within our team. It started as a mere run script in need of an adequate name. I foresaw the ability to interactively edit the system composition like a live-programming environment. Inspired by the cool-sounding name of an early 3D modeller on the Atari (āCybersculptā), this line of thoughts led to the name Sculpt. Since none of my colleagues really challenged it, it was good enough. Just remember that Sculptās predecessor had the silly name Turmvilla. Sculpt was at least more sensible than that. Thatās about it.
In the meanwhile, Sculpt OS has clearly outgrown its role of a sophisticated working example. It has become central to our project. So I quite clearly see your point: From the perspective of marketing, the name Sculpt cuts too short.
āGerminateā is a really nice suggestion. I like it a lot.
Emerging life instead the (mostly dead) material of a sculpture. Thatās certainly a more positive and relatable analogy.
Drawing a connection to the Fern-like Genode logo. Thatās beautiful. Almost like intended.
Starting with the letter G, like Genode, or Goa. Thatās a plus.
The word is not commonplace and has an interesting (and somewhat confident) ring to it, in my opinion.
So yes, I agree with you that it is indeed much better marketable than the name Sculpt.
While pondering on your suggestion, I wondered, would the prospect of the disruptive change from XML to HDR present an opportunity for adopting a new name? This way, the name change would not be arbitrary but it would be connected with the rebirth of Sculpt as a new incarnation?
As I see it, the terminology isā¦