I don't think anyone thinks that the Gooseberry is a bad thing per se (quite the contrary if it gets people thinking about computing), just that the choice of name is a bit disingenuous.
If you believe in your product then you should have the conviction and the cojones to name it what you want to name it, not some watered down name based on a "rival's" successful offering.
Can you explain this statement in your own words, please?mahjongg wrote: As for myself, I think that any deviation from standard x86 platforms is an enrichment.
Almost the entire non-mobile computer industry is based on x86 and x86-64. Aside from the 64-bit address spaces, x86 has also remained a stable platform for the past several decades, truly giving it the title "write once, run anywhere". As an example; at the same time the many flavours of ARM have truly segmented the market to the point where (for example) Ubuntu have dropped support for older ARM instruction sets. Besides that, ARM still hasn't got their technology ready for a full migration towards 64bit addressing. Other architectures such as Itanium, AVR, RISC, PIC, MIPS and SPARC (there's probably more) are uncommon in some fields and crucial in others (specific to certain appliances).
What I'd like to bring forth with this post is that although deviation from x86 can be a huge enrichment of the mind, it doesn't always give you a direct advantage as the different architectures are a completely different world on their own. The x86 compatible code I write is never related to the mandatory registers I often come across when hobbying around with avr. In my spare time I'm also slowly looking into cortex M3 (ARMv7 I think it is); and it's again very different from anything I've seen before (aside from the C language).