Having worked in contracts/procurement for way too many years (and not because I have too much time on my hands), I am curious as to why we have reference after reference in this forum to R6, and not the correct ND6?
I suppose IBM did this to itself by referring the the beta as RNext, but it is a name which actually helps marketing and brand identity (at least in my opinion).
Any thoughts out there?
Subject: Semantics: It is ND6, not R6
Well, maybe because it was R3, then R4, then R5. Perhaps it’s that if you go to the Help About window in the Notes client, it says Release 6.whatever. Why is this so important to you? It’s pretty obvious the designations are essentially interchangable.
Subject: RE: Semantics: It is ND6, not R6
Not that it is important, just pondering why language is used as it is, how people come to refer to things, etc etc. A “Thought for the Day”:-).
Subject: Semantics: It is ND6, not R6
Step back a little farther.
(This is all if my memory is correct, which it might not be, but…)
IBM wanted to call it R6. But some other company already had a software product called R6, so they would be infringing on that copyright. Therefore, the ‘official’ name had to be something else – ND6. But before it ever had an official name, people were calling it R6, so that is the name that stuck in the popular vernacular.
Subject: RE: Semantics: It is ND6, not R6
David,
I don’t think that’s actually the case. First of all, it’s not a copyright at issue here - it’s a trademark. Two entirely different animals. Second, it defies logic to think that simply using “R6” within the connotation of Lotus Notes/Domino R6 could possibly be construed as a violation of that trademark, even if it existed and was recognized as such (of course that is quite dubious IMHO).
Subject: RE: Semantics: It is ND6, not R6
I recall hearing the trademark story, but I never heard what software/company they thought would jump on them about it.
It is kind of like calling a product Freelance when the world calls everything a PowerPoint™except in IBM where they call them both “Foils”.
Subject: SAP, I believe
If memory serves, SAP has R… labeled software, and IBM made an agreement with them not to use the R… designation for future Notes versions.
Otoh, there’s a Dutch company that sells an intranet content management solution (and quite a crappy one if I have to believe users and administrators - they say even Notes 1.0 was more advanced 
that’s called ‘R5’ and competes directly with Notes, then also R5. IBM never pursued that matter.
Subject: Semantics: It is ND6, not R6
suppose IBM did this to itself by referring the the beta as RNext
Pretty much. I got into the habit of saying R(n) when version 5 was in beta. RNext became R5, and the rest is history. I also think that R(n) rolls off the tongue better than ND(n).
So does ND establish the brand better than R? It’s more meaningful in a technical sense, I suppose, but if nobody wants to use it, then it’s ultimately not a very good name.
Subject: Semantics: It is ND6, not R6
The important thing here is that a product needs to have a solid identity, especially with the climate in the messaging market at the moment. I was always under the impression that it was ND6…
Subject: RE: Semantics: It is ND6, not R6
ND6 is the only correct designation, due to trademark issues (someone else trademarked R6, believe it or not), but a lot of people, even in IBM, still use R6.