Coq

Coq provides an interactive theorem prover for proofs about programming languages and other computer systems. Coq plays on the name of creator Thierry Coquand, puns on the Calculus of Constructions (CoC) Coquand was working on before, and follows the French tradition of naming tools after animals (coq meaning rooster in French).

This year, the Coq team announced it would receive proposals to rename Coq. “Testimonies from people who experienced harassment or awkward situations [and] reports about students (notably women) who ended up not learning / using Coq because of its name” spurred this effort. The announcement goes so far as to assert “[t]he only thing that is clear at this point is that we cannot just ignore the issue [of the name Coq] and do nothing.” The wiki documents a significant effort to change the name, paragraphs of advantages and disadvantages plus another page dedicated to the implications of changing the name.

Schiit

Schiit makes audio equipment, most famously amps and DACs. Right on their website, Schiit declares:

Yes, that is our name. Shih-tah. It's a proud German name … . Or, well, no. Yep, Schiit is our name, and it's pronounced, well, like “hey man, that's some really good Schiit!”

Reportedly, from 1:57 in the following video, co-founder Jason Stoddard's wife Lisa, in the high-octane, profanity-filled chaos leading up to the company's launch, suggested the name and it stuck.

Schiit, an American company, builds its products in America. So the German “Shih-tah” seems to me an excuse, an alternative moniker to use around polite company. Today, the carousel on their homepage proudly declares

SCHIIT'S EVEN MORE BANANAS

and

SHOOT THE SCHIIT

and reviewers make affectionate skits (0:00 to 0:28) about the name:

Reflections

A profane name can bring about joy or discomfort. What drives this difference?

  1. Background, even reasonable and interesting background, does not provide full justification for a profane name.

Someone harassed about Coq probably wouldn't feel better if you told them about the French tradition of naming tools after animals. It certainly wouldn't cancel out their negative experience.

  1. Casual, homogenous audiences better receive profane names.

Schiit feels more fitting in a fun YouTube video targeting English-speaking viewers than Coq feels in an academic lecture targeting non-French-speaking students.

  1. “Flexible” profanity yields cleaner usage than “dirty” profanity.

I can make so many more jokes about Schiit than Coq, and I won't feel like a pervert or creep joking about Schiit.