I propose "node" for sure. The thing you are running is a dot in the network; a knot in the freenet; a small protected, hardened pearl, strung to other alikes; "node" just fits perfectly. Also, this "knot"-idea can be visualized very nicely if you want to visualize the connections to other peers with their locations, etc. Having a small circle with a comic-style sign "My Node Is My Castle" is just too appealing ;)
By the way I slightly dislike the movement to "dumb speak" with terms like "strangers" etc. I mean, this is technical stuff with an actual meaning. People have adapted to P2P "peers", "hash", "(Kad) nodes" etc. so please don't mush these terms to "ah, like, let's call it 'thing' and, eh, 'youknowwhat'." This also makes communincation between devs and users very cumbersome as they might use different terms for the same thing. my 0,02 ? bo-le wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 23. April 2009 03:34:46 schrieb Ian Clarke: > >> I propose "software" as an alternative to "node". >> > > IMHO this is the wrong way. 'software' is to common... > > Freenet is a network, running on top of 'internet' (currently only > on 'internet', but a WLAN transport plugin allows 'internet free' smash > networks/clowds/nodes), so the 'freenet software' *is* a node. > > I suggest to use 'node' (helps to easily differ from other 'software'), > but explain it shortly on the firstpage the user see, all over occurrences > of 'node' have an shortexplaintooltip and/or a link to ExplainTerms.html#node > > MfG > saces > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > >
