Jamulus
Find a better name for Private/Public servers #2228
Replies: 11 comments 51 replies
-
|
Possibly related #2100 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Listed / Unlisted -- Like telephone numbers in the Telephone Directory (good old paper book). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes. Actually I tend to like unlisted more then unregistered… |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Public sever / Independent server |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As of right now (and subject to change at whim...), my working definitions are: Jamulus client - connects your sound system to the internet! Let's jam! Jamulus server - somewhere Jamulus clients connect to for jams. A Jamulus server has an "address". Server list - a list of Jamulus servers retrieved from a Jamulus directory (a Jamulus directory "publishes" a server list, if you like to use the word "publish" for anything at all) Jamulus directory - a service with which a Jamulus server can choose to register and from which a Jamulus client can request a server list (list of Jamulus servers). A Jamulus directory has an "address". Address - Jamulus client users will most likely use the server list in the Connect dialog, so only need to know the Jamulus directory and Name for the Jamulus server they want to use. However, the Conenct dialog also allows entering an Address. An Address can also be given for a Custom directory, both in client and server. The Address is a host name or IP (for a Jamulus server, both IPv4 and IPv6, when enabled) address with an optional port number, for instance "jams.example.com:22555" or "192.168.1.54". Public directory - each of the built in Jamulus directories, along with some custom directories Custom directory - additional Jamulus directories not built into the Jamulus server or client Private directory - a custom directory that restricts access for server registration and server list retrieval Private server - a server (optionally registered with a directory) that restricts access for client connection NOTE: "Privacy" (i.e. running as a private directory or private server) is not directly supported by Jamulus - firewall set up is required. (When thinking about this, remember |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
No, because I could post the address on Facebook ads and anyone could connect. If I really didn't want anyone connecting except specific people, I'd need to ensure my firewall was set up right. (Take Worldjam for example. They firewall the Jamulus server instances where performances happen so no unexpected people join in.)
Taking that Worldjam Directory example further and combining with the Worldjam Server example -- when the Server firewalls become active, the Servers "disappear" from the server list... unless you use |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
So in terms of the documentation, we will be retiring the use of "private" in all contexts to avoid confusion. If anyone wants to write an article or something about "securing" your server/directory with firewalls and whatnot, then that's fine but we don't talk about it on the website. It just remains to decide if we want to adopt the terms "registered" and "unregistered" or "listed" and "unlisted" for this. The latter might be a little clearer perhaps since the former sort of implies something else happens once you're registered (like registering at the dentist, or being registered to vote). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'm not that keen on the "un-" prefix, either, now I've had it pointed out to me. You've either registered or you've not. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We can flex it, but I don't think we should impose assymetry for the sake of it like "The benefits of a registered server over one that isn't registered". Also read somewhere that more people skip "not" by accident when reading than they do an "un-" word because it looks different. Not sure how true that is, but it certainly happens in writing. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I certainly skip writing "not" a lot... (when I intend to, that is). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Mapping to @pljones' list, I like Listed/Unlisted or Registered/Unregistered. I think they're the clearest terms and don't infer any specific sense of "privacy" (meaning that access is truly controlled at the server). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I am wondering why a name change seems to be necessary. I don't think that any of the proposals here, including mine, are better that the status quo. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
You can't directly connect to a server registered to directory which is behind a NAT. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Not sure how that rare technicality changes the argumentation. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
What does that mean? Where is it in the code? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I do not know, I am trying to make sense of what is said. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I can see what you mean, but in choosing "independent" as the opposite of "listed", you can see that "independent" falls down for similar reasons to "private" if it implies (or could be interpreted to mean) things that may not be true (like being "independent" of a Directory, which it might not be). The word "unlisted" (or "not listed") is free of those issues I think, and has the added advantage of being a linguistic pairing with "listed". The same is true of "registered" of course, which has a natural pairing, but (and perhaps this depends on the language) may not be as free of implications compared to "listed"? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
By reading through the comments, I have the impression that we‘re all kind of ok with calling previously public servers as "listed" servers. The problem is still the opposite. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The advantage of "Not listed" or "Unlisted" (I think we could use both in the docs as needed) is that they linguistically pair well with "Listed". |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
If we're going to think of the directories like phone books, then you can be listed in the book... or not. Take Yellow Pages as an example directory. How many people here are listed in it? I'd guess not many. How do they think of themselves? "Not listed in Yellow Pages" rather than something like "Independent of Yellow Pages"? That you're not in any directory still doesn't mean you're not publicly, widely known - but you'll not be focussing on the usual target audience, admittedly. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
OK, so next... I'm not currently listed in Yellow Pages. What do I need to do? Personally, I don't think "I list" is the right answer to that. I have to register -- a registration form to show I'm a business, so I can be accepted and then listed in their directory. It's the directory that is providing the listing to the clients. The clients can then ask each server for more details (like "what's your ping, who's online?") -- the server is not "doing" the listing. The server has to register (and re-register to say it's still a going concern). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I really don't see the problem of the terms Private/Public. All suggested alternatives like "unregistered", "unlisted", "independent", etc. are even more incorrect since even a private server can register to a private directory server, so it is still "registered" and "listed" and if it is only to be accessed via a private directory server it's not independent too,... In my opinion "Public" means accessible by anyone via the public Jamulus explorer and "private" means you will have to have the URL or IP address provided by the owner. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Well it does give them some access control as only people they give the address (and optional port number) to can access their server (just like with their private phone number). I run a Jamulus helpdesk and I never had anyone who didn't understand this after just one or two lines of explanation ;=) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Neither can I, and I totally agree with you (and BTW we do explain it in the docs). The trouble is that the issue is less about explanation and more about accuracy. It's hard to argue against the fact that something isn't objectively correct once that's pointed out. So in this case precision comes at the cost of explanation perhaps. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
But this is in the server section, which most users don't read. ;=)
I think clarity is more important than precision.... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Heh - well we could link to that from the client docs maybe.
That's my position, yes. But I also recognise the strength of feeling against that, which strength ultimately I think will cause more problems if it's ignored. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think we are mainly on the same level gilgongo, except that I don't recognize the strength of feeling against it. and I can't see how it would cause problems for anyone. If we give in to this we should change a lot of terms since they are not precise... All are terms that are commonly used and very clear to most users, but they are absolutely not precise... (I think I've made my point, so for now I will abandon this discussion. ;=) ) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
listed/unlisted |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
It doesn't, list should as you stated ... register is the action, listed should be the result. (But as I made clear that's not guaranteed either)
No they probably don't, but might... And again, we need to document properly, this includes using all correct terminology and not excluding the possibility of future changes. ==== As far as I can see the only thing that started our discussion was my remark that "registered" was the correct term (for normal servers) and that the terms "Private" and "Public" still remain valid also (for directory servers). I never said "listed" is a wrong term (though it is an 'expected' result, not an action) , and I just say we should document correctly, using ALL correct terms and action/result relations. So I really don't understand why you insist on using "listed" instead of "registered" since these are two different things. ** As I vented my thougts on this subject I rest my case and leave this discussion again... ** |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The steps we require of a new server operator, the information we expose to them, and what we expect them to learn needs to be minimized and simplified. Otherwise, friction. Which reminds me of another mark against registered: We ask every server operator to register, even if they ultimately want an unregistered server. (It's a test step.) Typically, registering means submitting personally identifiable information. But we don't do that. I bet some people stop when they realize they need to "register". It's a "high friction" word we should avoid. So if I had my way, someone setting up a server wouldn't see the word "register" even if more advanced topics mention it. As for public, it seems a little shaky. Listed on a public directory? Maybe that makes your server public. Private is a worse word, because really all that's going on is the server isn't listed on a public directory (or maybe lists on no directory). You can still call an unlisted number if you know the digits! So when is a server really private? But you're saying a directory server could be public or private. Same thing: Its address is well-known or unknown, but not public or private. I know if I continue using the elegant language that omits registration talk, and instead talk about listing a server on a directory, or running an unlisted server, the ease and clarity of this language will speak for itself. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Only if the operator chooses to supply such information when creating a registered server. On the vocabulary: the issue here (now resolved) was that "public" and "private" were clearly misleading terms. Whether "registered" should be "listed" (or any other term) is a moot point because what matters more are the concepts. A registered server could be called a "banana server" but you'd still set it up the same. Also don't forget we are multi-lingual, so any stylistic discussion of English terms is pretty limited. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Where can I see page view counts across all languages? It's not moot if we're using two terms when one will do. Presumably we translate both terms. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We have no web analytics :-) What do you mean by "if we're using two terms when one will do"? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We're saying a server lists on a directory by registering. Those are the two terms. For non-English translations, presumably we compel new server operators to learn the translated form of registration, and then explain our vocabulary word just means adding your server to the directory list. We should just say a server lists itself on a directory. In fact, we do. (We use list so much! We understand that's what the step is about.) The registration process entails choosing a directory address and announcing yourself. This results in being listed. If you don't do it, your server is unlisted. Registration is an engineering concept that users don't need to know. By adding the vocabulary for every new server operator, we then have to educate about registration, when it's basically nothing more than listing, so far as I can see. Kill the term, win the simplicity of choosing a listed or unlisted server. "Join me on my unregistered server!" vs. "Join me on my unlisted server!" |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
When a Directory is full, a registration request should be refused and the Server will not be registered. When running with the UI this should be clear. The logging when running headless should also be clear. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes, so I think that's why we use "Registered" rather than "Listed" as the Server configuration type/mode name. Since listed is not the same thing as registered (if you see what I mean). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I can't quite fathom what you mean. I think you're saying that since registration can fail, we don't want to call the server listed. The server just failed to list itself on the directory, because the directory is full. The result is an unlisted server that is configured to add itself to a directory list, but failed. This corner case can be explained in the log or UI. "Failed to list this server in the directory: The directory is full." And what's the result? An unlisted server. Technically, a server that failed to register, and so is not listed, but is called a registered server that failed to register when booted, a configuration failure corner case that we differentiate from a server that doesn't try to register, that is also unlisted as a result. If you run a server that lists on a directory, and that fails, it's a corner case that we can communicate in UI and log. I feel better able to discuss the scenarios, meanings, and outcomes more effectively without using the word registered. I should look at the UI and log in the failure scenario that makes this word necessary. The view that "a registered server could be called a banana server" also indicates to me that registered isn't a great name, and that we're introducing an ambiguous term that we must then define. Without registered, we can use self-evident words like add and list. If I fail to list on a directory, I have an unlisted server. How do I get an unlisted server if I want one? By not listing on a directory. I also might get one if that directory is full. I'll continue hoping to see the merit of registered. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
OK but we just needed two separate terms: one for the type of Server and one for what happens when it appears on a Directory. The fact that we had to have a discussion to determine which words to use shows that there isn't an obvious choice. But like @DavidSavinkoff says, I don't think anyone has expressed any confusion about how to set up a server based on the vocabulary used today. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
"To list" is an active verb. "To be listed" would be the passive. Then there would be "a request to be listed" which could fail. The list entry contains some details - these are the "registration details". The teminology would need to be something like "request a list entry containing listing details"? (Because the "list", overall, contains "list entries", which are the details about the registered Server.) So, that request a list entry containing listing details is what "register" means and "registration" is the making of such a request. I'm not sure using more words makes it clearer if the short forms are defined, clearly, once. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Lets make two lists of the same candidate words, one rated from best to worst, and the other rated from worst to best but not necessarily in reverse order. Then consider the first of the best and the last of the worst, and toss a coin for the rest. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Whatever terms we decide on they will need to be described in the documentation. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
First of all: THIS IS NOT ABOUT DISCUSSING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REAL PRIVATE SERVERS. Please post suggestions about that in (#1057).
But now the main issue:
The term "private" and "public" server is outdated and technically incorrect. However the concept of a "private" server is still present and well known in the Jamulus community. We need to find a precise but also not too technical term for private servers.
@pljones suggested to change the term "private" server to "unregistered" server which I am not really happy with since I'd think it's not intuitive, tech speech and too much Jamulus related (ofc. there are also different arguments for "unregistered" ;-).)
I'd rather prefer something simpler and closer to "private" server like "Unpublished" (which is not ideal) or similar.
Also see #2199 (comment)
We're updating the documentation to use the term "unregistered" now: jamulussoftware/jamuluswebsite#677
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions