[cocktailpeanuts]

There's bad name, and then there's repulsive name.

All the examples you mention fall under "bad name", and it's not even objectively bad, I actually think they're great names, so it's subjective. And NONE of them are repulsive.

Then again, if you insist cockroaches are lovable creatures I have nothing more to say.

[jabl]

> All the examples you mention fall under "bad name", and it's not even objectively bad, I actually think they're great names, so it's subjective. And NONE of them are repulsive.

My argument was not that they are good or bad, but rather that we've come to associate positive things with the companies in question, and then we post-hoc come up with explanations why they names are good etc.

> Then again, if you insist cockroaches are lovable creatures I have nothing more to say.

I don't think they are lovable, no. But they are an evolutionary success story; they've been around for hundreds of millions of years, long before humans. And they'll be here after we humans have extincted ourselves in some nuclear holocaust/massive environmental disaster/pick your favorite apocalyptic scenario/.

And if you manage to squish one, there's hordes of em left; just like I'd like my DB to be, so actually I think it's a very good name! :)

[Retra]

There's no post-hoc for some of those names. Some of them were picked because they actually were good. Even something as bland as 'Microsoft' fit right in with the culture that spawned it. And the rest were picked because they were simple, neutral, and had the potential to be iconic brands.

Cockroach is not something someone picks because it is good. That's a name you pick to make a statement that your name doesn't 'technically' matter beyond the fact that it is memorable and associative.