intrigeri:
> 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!
Thanks!
>> 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.
Interesting... I understand from what you said that people are working
on nonvolatile RAM. I didn't know that and looks well... maybe like a
long-term problem for Tails. But we'll see.
> But I, too, would like to remain flexible to change :)
Relax, we'll keep on calling stuff "persisten.*" for a while :)
--
sajolida
