>> [snip] >> Oh, and, of course, some of the names aren't available as URLs. >> [snip] > >This one seems to be a rather needless stumbling block. >Is there any *real* reason to avoid, say, Walter, if www.walter.com >is taken? Suppose you were really in love with the name Walter. >Wouldn't something like www.walteros.com, www.walter-os.com, >walteroperatingsystem.com, etc. be acceptable? Yes. The lack of a "real" URL isn't a complete stumbling block. It is just one more "issue". One more thing that differentiates names. One feature on the name feature checklist. ;-) >In fact, I'd suggest that most folks would just go to google or yahoo and >search for "Walter". (Hence the rationale for choosing an easily web-searchable >yet unique name.) I was thinking about this the other day - I should set google to be my default page - I go there more than any other site.