Re: [Usability] Gnome Volume Manager

[Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>]

On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 09:59 -0400, Liam R. E. Quin wrote:

> An argument that does fly is that it's not the name of a package
> anyone would ever install except to satisfy a dependency.
> 
> We should be trying to make our computers less intimidating, less
> full of jargon where it's not needed, and easier for humans to
> integrate into their lives.

You're right.  And "gnome-volume-manager" (or "GNOME Volume Manager")
isn't anything anyone ever sees ever unless they're a very technical
user who's installing stuff from source or hand-installing RPMs, so the
point is already moot.

If we're going to get rid of the term "volume" from even stuff technical
users see, you better go start bugging the Linux guys to rename LVM2
(Linux Volume Manager), bug the GNU man page authors to get rid of the
various uses of volume in a number of man pages, etc.

You also need to come up with a whole new word to confuse all the people
that have experience with Mac OS, Novell, AIX, and so on in order to
refer to network volumes and virtual volumes, and differentiate between
a disk and a partition on a disk, and so on.  (Volume easily refers to
all of them, makes sense, and is familiar terminology; no other word
does that except maybe "mount point" in UNIX terminology, but since
gnome-vfs doesn't actually mount network volumes...)

The usage of the word volume for a place to store information fits the
actual definition of the word "volume" just fine.