I don't even know what a "computer-sounding name" is. C64 and "International Business Machines"? In that case, Amiga and Apple came next, and you must have been suffering since. (Gooogol? Yahoo!)
In general, people are too paranoid about naming. It's one of those topics where nobody actually has a problem with a suggested name, but everyone fears others might. That's how you end up with Alexion, Allegion, Alliant, Altria, Ameren, and other names that probably cause every new employee to suffer a midlife crisis.
The best names have always been evocative, i. e. telling a story. And it's actually helpful if that story isn't just easy and happy. That's how "Plan B" works, "Virgin", or HN's perennial favourite: "CockroachDB"
Well, I think we should call the nuclear reactor complex "George gorge" and that it should be painted hot pink. Oh, and by the way backup safety seal 1a9-562 needs to have it ts annular tolerance reduced by 0.5mm at 230C or there may be a 5:1 exponential increase in failure probability over 10 year replacement lifetimes in class two failure scenarios.
I agree that a name matters, though I disagree about needing to sound a certain way. A name is a first impression and a small form of marketing. At it's best, a name should try and say something about what it's representing. However, at the end of the day, it is just a label. Using a common given name isn't terrible or bad, it just seems like a wasted opportunity.
Edward literally means treasure-guardian, and so would seem more suitable for security tools. Anthropomorphic names don't bother me, but they're not as fun as bombastic ones like Ultron or Galactor (hint hint).
Maybe nobody else cares, but the name does matter. Edward, Stan, Cassandra. Have we run out of computer (or programming) sounding names?
This is Computatrum Antropomorphicus.