No it really shouldn't. Try finding help with a problem with you're having with "photos". In an open source operating system you shouldn't have marketing people trying to compete for what is the one and only photo viewer or file browser so you need actual names to tell them apart.

> KDE application naming is so consistently terrible that their default application launcher has to subtitle them with descriptions.

So they are discoverable after all and that is a problem how?

It's not about fighting over the "one and only", it's about sane human-friendly defaults. A desktop environment can and should express opinions over those defaults, because they are what make or break the experience for a new or novice user. If a power user wants to swap things out, rename/disambiguate them or whatever then ultimately nothing stops them.

The subtitles are a user interface bandaid that has to exist because the naming is bad. With discoverable naming, the bandaid would not be needed. When you keep compounding bandaids, user experience breaks down.

Yes it really should. It’s much easier for users to identify what “Photos” does instead of “Koko”. It’s infinitely easier to identify at a glance what a “Files” app does versus “Nautilus”, same goes for “Epiphany” and “Browser”.

Off-the-wall crazy names only work for non-defaults because then you guarantee that those who need it will know what it does whatever the app’s called.

Your comment is the prime example of why Linux sometimes gets a bad rep for being too obtuse or inscrutable for the general public. These small things matter. They make a a real difference for the end user. And friction when trying find a single default app/utility is the last thing you want when trying to get people to use your OS.

Couldn’t you just prefix your search with KDE? Search engines aren’t that bad. I like the Apple approach where apps are just named what they do.

(Minus Safari. I wonder why they went with Safari.)