sajolida wrote (05 May 2015 16:04:03 GMT) :
> u:
>> It would be long, but it might make it clear while being backwards
>> compatible to call this "Persistent Encrypted Storage". It would also be
>> a term which makes it clear to the user what she is handling with.
> Agreed as well. I think we should replace "volume" by "storage" and add
> "encrypted" in more places like you propose.
I like it!
> I also feel that "storage" conveys better the idea of persistence
> than "volume" so maybe at some point we'll feel confident enough to
> drop the word "persistence" sometimes. But I think we're not
> there yet.
I agree we're not there yet, and personally I doubt that we'll ever be
there. Even Microsoft (I know you'll like it ;) distinguishes the
concept of "volatile storage" and "nonvolatile storage":
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms940147%28v=winembedded.5%29.aspx
Also note that nonvolatile memory is being developed as we speak (both
the hardware and the Linux kernel support), so the common "memory is
volatile, storage is not" understanding, that might work today, may
not work anymore tomorrow.
But I, too, would like to remain flexible to change :)
Cheers!
