Reconsider the terminology around "persistence"
Original problem statement
We inherited this terminology from the world of live distributions but during the discussions about the Tor Browser confinment and the Greeter revamp, several people raise issues about it.
It might be worth thinking about that and see if we can find something better (and otherwise be happy with it but for a good reason).
We should be really careful while doing that as it could impact many many place in our project (website, documentation, code, even infrastructure). So feasibility, cost effectivness and flexibility are important issues here as well.
In https://lists.autistici.org/message/20200227.123500.9aee624d.en.html, we agreed on using "Persistent Storage".
- Merge these examples into the style guide, reducing them to the minimum.
- Apply this change consistently across our doc and interfaces. It will break tons of translations so let's do it all at once.
#3 Updated by sajolida almost 5 years ago
To explain a bit more the issue. The word "persistence" does not define an object as such but the quality of an object. So unless we're confident enough in using such a neologism, we need to add some object to go along this quality. So far we've been using the object "volume" (quite a technical term without much meaning on its own). But then we realized that "persistent volume" was not conveying the idea of encryption which is another key idea (at least as much as being persistent in the case of Tails). So in some places I've used "encrypted persistence" (neologism) or "encrypted persistent volume".
I agree that users are getting used to that term. And that's the reason why we should be careful while changing those things. But this should not prevent us from finding better terms that might be easier to graps for newcomers or easier to manipulate for doc writers.
#4 Updated by sajolida almost 5 years ago
In the thread https://lists.autistici.org/message/20150425.181220.bd80416d.en.html, we are proposing "Persistent Encrypted Storage". The word "storage" is less jargonistic and has much more meaning that "volume". It conveys better the idea of a place to store your data.
Note that when using "storage" the work "persistent" becomes slightly redundant.
#6 Updated by sajolida almost 4 years ago
These days I'm thinking that going for the neologism "persistence" (without "volume" or "storage") should work and has the advantage of being shorter and it's also what use prefer using on development channels. Maybe we should ask opinion from natives about how this sounds.
#7 Updated by Anonymous almost 3 years ago
That's also how it's called in Debian Live by the way. See https://debian-live.alioth.debian.org/live-manual/stable/manual/html/live-manual.en.html#556 for reference.
- Target version set to Tails_3.16
From discussions with Simply Secure I'm tempted to stick with "Persistence", with a capital "P" to mark it as a special feature.
Users I've interviewed were fine with "persistence", or used their own version like "persistent memory".
I'll make a final call this summer while testing the content I'm writing for #9814 and I could update it in a bunch of places in time for Tails 4.0.
- Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
- Target version changed from Tails_4.2 to Tails_4.3
I'll apply https://tails.boum.org/contribute/how/documentation/style_guide/persistence/ when working on #9814 and test it with users.
All this will be done by 4.3.
- Description updated (diff)
- Target version changed from Tails_4.5 to Tails_4.6
I did a last round of answers on tails-project@ since I proposed "Persistent Storage" there on February 27.
All core developpers who answered were happy with this choice (segfault and moire) and nobody else raised important concerns. So it looks like we finally reached the end of this discussion. Pfff!