[pyuser583]

“It’s not the Devil, it’s a daemon.” That’s a not a conversation I would want to have.

The etymology of “daemon” in the computer sense is Maxwell’s Daemon, a thought experiment involving a mischievous demon.

Even to an above average intelligence person, that’s a lot of explaining.

Most pre-modern peoples believed in demons, and most people believe images have power.

This seems like a violation of the best practices of logo design.

[krackers]

From Wikipedia, "Daemon is actually a much older form of "demon"; daemons have no particular bias towards good or evil, but rather serve to help define a person's character or personality"

That being said, while the etymology of the term may not be directly referring to the modern rendition as the "devil", doesn't the logo (red thing with horns and trident) directly reference it (as a pun on daemon/demon)?

In some sense I do _understand_ where the person in OP's story is coming from. We imbue words and images with power through collective culture (Stallman certainly has remarked on the power of a name, see [1]), and if you had placed great (negative) emotional weight behind a concept, then you would be distressed to see it in something you interact with.

Ironically I think if the actual logo ended up being the "bad taste" version Wikipedia mentions as

>a picture of the BSD Daemon blowtorching a Solaris logo

it'd actually end up as more acceptable since it now gets framed as a narrative ("why a demon? Because who else would dare take on solaris")

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.en.ht...

[thiht]

Believing in demons in 2024 is a violation of basic human intelligence. Christian literalism is a travesty and has no right to impose anything.