James Carlson wrote:
> Neal Pollack writes:
>
>> Calling it "simlinks" will, guaranteed, cause some level of confusion.
>> You reall want to make it easy for your new customers, not confuse them.
>> Find a better name, PLEASE.
>>
>
> It's extraordinarily disappointing to me that the discussion here has
> been on the name alone, rather than something more substantive, such
> as the APIs and behaviors that would (one day) be needed to emulate a
> wireless AP.
>
> If the folks so desperately upset by this can come up with a name that
> isn't either someone else's trademark or otherwise unusably bad,
> please do, and we'll consider it.
>
> (I think the idea that the name will be confusing is risible. On what
> planet does the dladm command line have anything to do with file
> system semantics?)
>
>
When you use it in a sentence, like this "make a symlink[sic] from
ce0".... some poor fool is not going to understand what it means.
Yes, technically the context *ought* to be enough. But I think enough
people have weighed in here to indicate that its likely going to be a
decision that once made will someday be regretted.
Yes, its unfortunate that we're bikeshedding. But names can also be
important. (How many times have I seen you bemoan the name a certain
driver used for Intel gigabit ethernet? ;-)
But IMO its a sign of goodness -- your proposal looks good.
And you've shut down any of the IMO more interesting conversation by
stating that a lot of the future ideas (such as replacing etherstub with
this) are "not this project".
If you have specific things that you'd like to discuss, maybe you should
ask those questions.
-- Garrett
