Because they don't pay a marketing team to work 9-5 alongside them? That's probably the reason why all the art is ugly too, their website kinda sucks, et al. But that's not really the main appeal of this project, and I think it's honorable that they're focusing all their effort on the product rather than the vanity. If they did spend time writing marketing double-speak, the HN refutation du-jour would be that they're not focusing on privacy enough.
> But on that line, why do we have GIMP, GNOME, Everything starting with the letter K on KDE, KDE itself, Hector Martin's "Asahi Lina" nonsense, and on and on...
Why was one of the first NES emulators called Nesticle? Who knows, and who cares? The quality of the software spoke for itself, and it opened the doors to decades of unsuccessful litigation from Sony and Nintendo. The same thing happened for Linux, Nginx, Kubernetes, BSD... you name it. The utility of these projects far outweighs their respective sex appeal, so why even bother making a pretty landing page?
While we're on the topic, why does Apple have such a bad history of choosing names for their stuff too? "Xcode" doesn't confer anything to me as a user, at least "Visual Studio" tells me I'm about to be using an IDE. Also makes it sound like an x11/Xorg tool, which it certainly isn't. Similarly, "Logic Pro", "Final Cut" and even "iTunes" are dorky titles. Even Microsoft, the patron saint of bad UX design, has the balls to just call their app "Music" and "Photos".