u:
> spencerone@???:
>>> sajolida:
>
>>> When installing Tails onto a USB stick from Windows, and for the time
>>> being, you need to go through two USB sticks:
>>>
>>> A. The first one being installed using UUI from pendrivelinux.com
>>> B. The second one being installed from the first one using Tails
>>> Installer.
>>> C. Then to be able to have a persistent volume you need to configure
>>> it and restart again.
>>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>> We've been looking for names to describe those three different kind of
>>> USB stick to the user. So far we've came up with:
>>>
>>> - "Temporary Tails", for the USB stick created in step A. We want to
>>> push people to consider this only as a temporary step before getting
>>> to a "real" Tails, because such devices don't benefit from automatic
>>> upgrades (that's a security issue) and you can't create a persistent
>>> volume on them (that's a usability issue).
>>>
>>> Some people have proposed "pre-Tails" as well.
>>
>> Both 'Temporary Tails' and 'pre-Tails' make sense. 'Almost Tails',
>> Not-quite-yet Tails', and 'Baby Tails' come to mind, and are quite fun,
>> but are not too useful in communicating the level.
>
> I don't like "pre-Tails" very much, I find it too a technical kind of term.
So do I. I'll stick to "temporary Tails" for the time being.
I also thought about the metaphor of the "seed" but couldn't come up
with anything really working.
>>> - "Minimal Tails", for the USB stick created in step B. We want to
>>> convey the idea that this is a good-enough Tails but with limited
>>> features: you have automated upgrades but no persistence, though you
>>> can create one on the same device if you want.
>>>
>>> Some people have proposed "Tails" only for this one.
>>
>> 'Minimal Tails' suggests minimal functionality, which is not the case.
>> 'Tails w/o Storage' might be more appropriate. 'Tails' makes sense in
>> this case. 'Good-enough Tails' is fun, too.
>
> Here I agree that one should call this Tails what it is. If it's only
> about storage, one should call it like this. If, in the future there are
> other functionalities which are not available on this medium, then I
> would be more in favour of calling it "Minimal Tails", "Tails" or
> "Simple Tails".
>
>>> - "Full-feature Tails", for the USB stick created in step C. This one
>>> benefits from automatic upgrades and has a persistent volume
>>> configured.
>>>
>>> Some people have proposed "Tails with persistence" for this one.
>>>
>>
>> 'Tails w/ Storage' vs 'Tails w/ Persistence' seems most universally
>> comprehendable. Seeing that this is the same level as 'B.', adding "w/
>> Storage" to "Tails" seems appropriate. Otherwise, 'Maximum Tails' seems
>> fitting, though isn't very proper.
>
> I would say that Tails without persistence is not less than
> "full-feature". It depends on the use case what full and minimal /
> simple means, no? Full feature sort of suggests that you need this to
> have everything. So maybe we can find a term which is not quantitative
> here and not oppose "minimal" and "full"...
Thank you for commenting on this. The more I read you the more I'm
convinced that we should use:
- "Tails" for whatever flash media installed by Tails Installer (with or
without persistence)
- "Tails with persistence" for such a "Tails" with a persistence
(or another term derived from "persistence", but that's another topic).
We could also specify "Tails without persistence" (or similar) when needed.
--
sajolida
