On Monday 16 April 2007 11:24 Rebecca Walter wrote:

On Monday 16 April 2007 11:16, jdd wrote:

...

Rebecca Walter wrote:

...

We need to unify terminology for all the various types of sources from which packages are installed (CDs, DVDs, network sources, etc.). So before I start saying what I think and why, I'd like to know what the community thinks. Please give me your reasoning for your preferred terminology.

I'd appreciate feedback by the end of the week so we can get the discussion going and hopefully reach a decision soon.

there should be a dictionnary or at least a wiki page with the prefered terms (I know there is already such things for Novell)

this is also very usefull for translations

It's in the style guide. All this is already available. What I need now is to know what I should add for this situation.

http://developer.novell.com/wiki/index.php/Opensuse-style

In the past, we had consistently used installation source, but some things happened that cost us that consistency. So now we need to make an informed decision so we can encourage consistency again.

IMHO, the term "installation sources" fits very well as does not explicitly name the actual medium the person installing his/her system may use (CDs/DVD/FTP tree or whatever) and OTOH the term is not too generic so that it could mean anything Tanja --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 16 April 2007 12:18, jdd wrote:

Rebecca Walter wrote:

...

In the past, we had consistently used installation source, but some things happened that cost us that consistency. So now we need to make an informed decision so we can encourage consistency again.

so the question is: do we keep "installation source" or use an other wording?

Exactly.

the problem comes from the "source" word, it can be confused with the programm source, often writen only "sources".

This given, very few users need or even know about progamm sources, so this problem may be secondary

It is a concern, definitely. Do you have other suggestions? What wording would you prefer and why? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 16 April 2007 13:09 Benji Weber wrote:

...

It is a concern, definitely. Do you have other suggestions? What wording would you prefer and why?

It's not an installation source , it is somewhere the user can find and install packages from.

in contrast to software repository or software catalogue: what would an installation source be for you, then?

I would suggest:

Software Repository

or

Software Catalogue.

Repository is in use by most other linux distributions so is probably the best choice, although catalogue has wider usage in the English language.

Source doesn't really explain what it is, and is too confusable with source code.

_ Benjamin Weber --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

Ok, I admit some may sound very strange for a native speaker. :)

But nonnative speakers need to be able to use (and translate) the English texts as well, so your opinions are very valid. Just to make sure I am understanding this properly, the thingie-you-install-from (generic wording to avoid bias, not a new proposal for terminology) has to have more data than just RPM packages to be usable, correct? I can't just stick a bunch of RPM packages a directory, point YaST or other tool at it, and install fun stuff, can I? We have to make sure we know exactly what we are identifying, as I think this is a pretty significant point. Whatever term we select should then (if everyone follows the style guide) be used in every tool developed by SUSE or openSUSE for the thing described by this term. That means _everyone_ from total newbie that never used a computer before to Linux geek who thinks slackware is the only real distro and just happens to be using openSUSE for some strange reason has to be able to understand what this term means. [Adding one of our developers to CC so he can hopefully help out with the technical side of things for me.] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

look also at: http://en.opensuse.org/Creating_YaST_Installation_Sources jdd -- http://www.dodin.net Lucien Dodin, inventeur http://lucien.dodin.net/index.shtml --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 16 April 2007 14:11, Rebecca Walter wrote: Hi,

On Monday 16 April 2007 14:08, jdd wrote:

...

look also at:

http://en.opensuse.org/Creating_YaST_Installation_Sources

Thank you. That is a very good explanation of the technical issues involved.

please keep in mind, that YUM (repomd) and YaST (zypp) sources are not the only "installation source" formats supported. There is also the NU (Novell Update) format used by SLE(S|D) and the ZenWorks stuff (Opencarpet, Red Carpet Enterprise (RCE), or ZENworks). "Catalogue" should definitely not be used, because this term is already used with the NU and ZenWorks sources - there an "installation source" may host several catalogues to which you have to subscribe. With regard to SLE(S|D) we should also check the ZenWorks terminology to avoid confusion before agreeing on a specific name... -- Regards Frank Frank Sundermeyer, Technical Writer, Documentation SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg Tel: +49-911-74053-0, Fax: +49-911-7417755; http://www.opensuse.org/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Reality is always controlled by the people who are most insane (Dogbert) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

Rebecca Walter wrote:

We have to make sure we know exactly what we are identifying, as I think this is a pretty significant point.

may be we should focus on this first: "a place where any openSUSE related distribution can find application archives (RPM, but rpm only?) and install them using yast" is that good? jdd -- http://www.dodin.net Lucien Dodin, inventeur http://lucien.dodin.net/index.shtml --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

...

Isn't it confused with a Subversion/CVS repository? I am not sure if there is already this connotation.

Not that I know of.

This is the first thing I think of when someone says repository to me.

IMO currently there's "Installation Source" used by YaST and there's "Software Repository" used by other package managers. Introducing something new might be even more confusing,

It might, but it might be a better way to go. We also have "catalog" introduced in our own software at one point. I don't think we should close this discussion to new suggestions either. Realistically, we aren't going to make everyone happy. We just have to find something that we thinks works with a strong reasoning on which to base this decision then BE CONSISTENT. The very worst thing is the state we have now: our own software doesn't agree with itself. Unfortunately, these things happen. We can't just snap our fingers and fix everything because it involved a lot of different developers, sometimes in separate projects. Beyond that, any change to the English breaks all existing translations of each string changed. This makes fixing the problem both time-intensive and expensive. Even once the decision comes into the style guide, fixing it will take time and probably a lot of bug reports. A few developers are probably going to be stubborn and do it their own way no matter how many bugs we file or what reasons we give them. But a lot of developers are willing to listen to input and appreciate having guidelines available. Sincerely, Rebecca --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

Hello, on Montag, 16. April 2007, Benji Weber wrote:

...

It is a concern, definitely. Do you have other suggestions? What wording would you prefer and why?

It's not an installation source , it is somewhere the user can find and install packages from. I would suggest:

Software Repository

Or just "Repository" (which can easily be shortened to "repo" when someone is too lazy to type ;-) Another reason for this name is that the repomd format is used ;-) and you have *.repo files and repodata/ directories on software.opensuse.org. Hmm, wasn't there a discussion on -factory some time ago already? Ah, here it is: "How to name that 'thing'?" http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2006-11/msg00445.html You should read the whole thread there (it's really interesting and has some good mails), but the best of it is: | > If you are looking for something new, try "(software) directory". | | Or to be even more innovative: Make this a configure option in YaST. [> Karl Eichwalder and Robert Schiele] ;-))

Software Catalogue.

I don't like this one. Catalogue reminds me to those kilo-weighted dead trees where you can order clothes etc. My point is: a Catalogue contains only the description, not the real product - but the openSUSE media (CD, DVD, FTP, whatever) _do_ contain the real product (aka packages).

Source doesn't really explain what it is, and is too confusable with source code.

I don't thing "Installation Source" is problematic and/or can be confused with program sources, but there are people whe differ. For me, "Repository" and "Installation Source" would be OK. Regards, Christian Boltz -- "Never surf faster, than your guardian penguin can fly!" --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

Rebecca Walter writes:

...

Hmm, wasn't there a discussion on -factory some time ago already? Ah, here it is: "How to name that 'thing'?" http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2006-11/msg00445.html

I am not intending to go back into that discussion for a variety of reasons that I'd really rather not get into.

This is a decision being made as part of the opensuse-style project following its guidelines.

Since you asked for reasons, you should read that discussion again, it really gave some good answers. It is relevant for today's discussion, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

Hello, on Montag, 16. April 2007, Tanja wrote:

On Monday 16 April 2007 13:59 Christian Boltz wrote:

...

on Montag, 16. April 2007, Benji Weber wrote:

...

Software Repository

Or just "Repository" (which can easily be shortened to "repo" when someone is too lazy to type ;-)

I wouldn't agree here as "repository" (on its own, without any specification) is *very* generic - it could be anything (from a repository in a database context to whatever...)

OK, then use "Software Repository" as proposed, at least in the (official) documentation. You probably can't avoid that people shorten it to "Repository" or "repo" on mailinglists - and the "warning" about this was more or less the intention of my previous comment (yes, I should have written it more directly). Nevertheless, people will still understand what is meant, even if it is only called "repository" on a mailinglist out of the context. (You also don't think about the pet if someone writes about "cat" on a linux-related mailinglist - and a "useless use of cat award" does not mean that you should use a mousetrap instead ;-))

...

Another reason for this name is that the repomd format is used ;-) and you have *.repo files and repodata/ directories on software.opensuse.org.

ok - but this argument for me sounds very developer-focused - why should we expect all users to know this??

You shouldn't - but for users who don't, it will be even more confusing that they can add an "installation source" with a "*.repo" file... Nobody expects that everybody knows that the format is called repomd - but everybody will see the *.repo files sooner or later. So my comment above should be shortened to make it less developer-focused: Another reason for this name is that you have *.repo files and repodata/ directories on software.opensuse.org. ;-) Regards, Christian Boltz --

... Bücher sind ein grässliches Medium ... Ich schätze daran die leichte Portierbarkeit vom Sofa ins Bett. [Bjoern Hoehrmann und Peter Bieling in dciwam]

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

Rebecca Walter writes:

...

Nobody expects that everybody knows that the format is called repomd - but everybody will see the *.repo files sooner or later. So my comment above should be shortened to make it less developer-focused:

I've been using SUSE for years and have never seen a .repo file.

There's AFAIK really no .repo file. There's repomd.xml and a repodata directory - but I'm not aware of a file ending with ".repo", Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

Rebecca Walter wrote:

...

so the question is: do we keep "installation source" or use an other wording?

what about the fact: RPM repository? however inst_source was used for years on the net, I'm not sure changing it is a good idea. May be better a not very good worg well known than a better unknown :-) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net Lucien Dodin, inventeur http://lucien.dodin.net/index.shtml --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

Rebecca Walter wrote:

What makes you say installation source is not very good? Only the possible conflict with program sources or do you have another concern?

I just want to make sure that I understand everyone's points.

if it was so good nobody would never have used any other thing and this discussion not happen :-) the (may be) problem is "installation" is for most people the first time step, one "Install Linux" or "Install Windows". On openSUSE tree, inst_source is a freezed folder (the one used when the distro is released) there is no "installation source repo" concept for the other OS where most packages are "auto-installables". Windows users can speak of "download center" or "archives folder" jdd -- http://www.dodin.net Lucien Dodin, inventeur http://lucien.dodin.net/index.shtml --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

jdd writes:

Rebecca Walter wrote:

...

...

so the question is: do we keep "installation source" or use an other wording?

what about the fact:

RPM repository?

And if we switch in some years from RPM to something else? Our trees contain already more than just RPMs, they contain metadata and patches.

however inst_source was used for years on the net, I'm not sure changing it is a good idea. May be better a not very good worg well known than a better unknown :-)

inst_source could still be an alias for the current YaST module to make the transition easier, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

Rebecca Walter writes:

...

inst_source could still be an alias for the current YaST module to make the transition easier,

You're assuming a transition here. Please take it easy on that. We don't know at this point what the decision will be.

I didn't want to imply a transition - I wanted to point out that this usage of inst_source does not *block* a transition. It's neutral IMO ;-) Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

Hi jdd, On Montag, 16. April 2007, jdd wrote:

so the question is: do we keep "installation source" or use an other wording?

Are any alternatives not a bit too artificial? From my perspective, "installation source" is perfect. :)

the problem comes from the "source" word, it can be confused with the programm source, often writen only "sources".

Generally you write "installation source" alltogether, not separated. If you always use these two words consistently, it should be clear.

This given, very few users need or even know about progamm sources, so this problem may be secondary

Right. :) Bye, Tom -- Thomas Schraitle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX GmbH >o) Documentation Specialist Maxfeldstrasse 5 /\\ 90409 Nuernberg _\_v http://en.opensuse.org/Documentation_Team --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

I just want to say that although I am not always commenting much, I am reading and taking seriously every post in this thread. I'm trying to keep an open mind on things, so I don't want to discuss it too much myself until I have a better feel of the hows and whys. When something isn't clear to me, I will ask, but otherwise I will try to stay pretty quiet until the end of the week when most people will have had a chance to say what they think and you can have discussed it a bit yourselves. Sincerely, Rebecca (Style Guide maintainer) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

Rebecca Walter writes:

Now that everyone should have had a chance to give their opinion, I'm going to try to sum up the arguments from both sides, both for and against the two main suggestions: repository and installation source. If anyone thinks I missed any points, please respond as soon as possible. I'd like to reach a decision by the end of the week so development and documentation have plenty of time to implement any changes needed. This means that if you have points to change in this list, I need them by Wednesday so I can take them into consideration.

Installation Source -------------------

Advantages ----------

Likely to be understandable to new users (installation source=source of installation=what you install from) Applicable to any acceptable installation media or other format, including future development Familiar to long-time SUSE users Less work to implement (already used in documentation and in large parts of YaST)

Disadvantages -------------

Possible confusion with program sources openSUSE source tree uses "inst_source" as the distributed media

Rebecca, I don't understand exactly what you mean with the above line. Could you explain this a bit better, please? thanks, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

Rebecca Walter writes:

...

...

Disadvantages -------------

Possible confusion with program sources openSUSE source tree uses "inst_source" as the distributed media

Rebecca, I don't understand exactly what you mean with the above line. Could you explain this a bit better, please?

jdd said:

...

On openSUSE tree, inst_source is a freezed folder (the one used when the distro is released)

openSUSE 10.2 does not have in it's tree the name "inst_source" anywhere, see ftp.opensuse.org/pub/distribution/10.2 for details.

This can cause confusion if it is used to refer to the initial release of the distribution, which it sounds like jdd is saying it is. That isn't the only valid type of installation source.

Does that explain it well enough or would you like more explanation of my reasoning?

That explains it - I was confused about where this come from. Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

Hello, just some small additions and comments ;-) on Montag, 23. April 2007, Rebecca Walter wrote:

Installation Source -------------------

Advantages ---------- [...] Disadvantages -------------

Possible confusion with program sources openSUSE source tree uses "inst_source" as the distributed media

Why do you see this as disadvantage?

Repository or Software Repository ---------------------------------

Advantages ----------

Used in some non-SUSE tools Familiar to users from other distros

Another advantage: The build service offers *.repo files - and IIRC 10.3 will have a way to add them in YaST with a single click.

Disadvantages ------------- [...] Connection to one specific type (there are valid options that don't have repo directories)

And there are valid repos that don't have an inst_source directory (for example all build service projects).

Definitions don't seem very applicable to CD and DVD media

Why do you think so? I'm not sure if the /is/ a definition of "repository" at all... Wikipedia lists several different definitions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repository One of them is a one-fits-all definition: "a place where data is stored" [1] Hmm, I wonder if we really need to decide for one or the other. IMHO both terms make sence in different cases. I would vote for using "installation source" for the "official" media (CD, DVD, FTP) and "repository" for the build service or other external packagers (suser-*, packman, ...). Another question: do you have any feedback from translators what they prefer and/or what is easier to translate? Or: what doesn't need translation - for example "Repository" is also used in german (and everybody who would translate it to "Behälter" or "Aufbewahrungsort" would not be understood ;-) "installation source" translates to "Installationsquelle". Not a problem, but a different word. Regards, Christian Boltz [1] reminds me somewhat to the german saying Kräht der Hahn auf dem Mist, ändert sich's Wetter oder es bleibt wie es ist. translated: When the cock crows on the dung heap, the weather changes - or it stays as it is. --

Wann ist jemand Fortgeschrittener ( Profi )? wenn man es nicht mehr selbst behaupten muß und es andere für einen tun. [> Bernhard Junk und Martin Falley in suse-linux]

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

Christian Boltz writes: Personally, I do not like "Installation Source". A source is something that pours or swells on its own, it is somehow self-active. But actually it is a depository from the user wants YaST to fetch software for installation.

Another question: do you have any feedback from translators what they prefer and/or what is easier to translate?

In the past, it was a very issue. It often got confused with "program sources", "software sources", "package sources", "source code", etc. Now it is probably fixed for all languages. Nevertheless we must take action because a different term is used by other software tools. -- Karl Eichwalder R&D / Documentation SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

Rebecca Walter writes:

What do you see as the chances of repository also causing issues in translation, especially considering your experience with the translators currently used for primary languages?

If we warn early enough, I do not expect problems. -- Karl Eichwalder R&D / Documentation SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

Rebecca Walter writes:

Are there any differences in these needs compared to the needs of using installation source? (Putting aside your personal opinion on inst source)

I think "installation source" and "repository" are equally difficult to understand. Only those with a Latin background are probably familiar with the word "repository" ("repositorium", ponere, posui, positum). It is just a matter of getting used to one or the other. -- Karl Eichwalder R&D / Documentation SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

Ok, but 'repository' is certainly the dominant term in GNU/Linux; people from other distributions (i.e. openSUSE) still call it a repository regardless of whether YaST calls it an Installation Source.

I know this was already mentioned but the only problem in my mind is the inconsistency around all of openSUSE; even for 10.3 alone we're looking at 'Repository' for the Build Service, 'Installation Source' for YaST, and 'Service' for Zypper. To be honest repository or installation source would both probably be ok if there was consistency around, but we really don't have that.

The goal of all this is consistency--to create guidelines that will encourage consistency. How well it works depends on how well the community and the internal company support this. I can say that at least the manuals will comply because the documentation team has already shown their willingness to comply with guidelines. Beyond that, it depends on the developer and, for internal stuff, management. All I can do is make the best decision I can, stick to it, and encourage compliance. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

[I clicked the wrong button, pardon for the dupe, Rajko!] On Apr 24, 2007 01:53 PM, Rajko M. wrote:

Have you thought to recommend both terms as alternatives. Synonyms are usefull to make writing easier.

Maybe, in LOTE, for example in German. But regarding technical writing, especially English technical writing, wording variation is considered bad style. At least, that's what people told me.

In my perception, confusion came in with zenworks, that introduced couple of new words for objects that we already knew under different names. Some people tried to comply with new terminology, most ignored it. That produced confusion and attempts to resolve problems that resulted in even more new words appearing.

Yes, that's why using synonyms is not encouraged. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

Sleepless night ;) tought about it again and I'm now convinced we should go for one of those:

(software) catalog (software) channel (software) directory

or something similar. Avoiding "source" would be a plus because this term is too closely coupled with "source code" and open software user are probably not ready to understand the differences easily.

I've bumped into some difficulty with the term repository when I say it to unsuspecting new users... the word has little meaning to them. Software catalog or something similar is much more descriptive. How about this: (software) library It (in my mind anyway) describes exactly what it is... a software library or a collection of software that end-users can browse and select applications from. C. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 25 April 2007 09:49 Clayton wrote:

...

Sleepless night ;) tought about it again and I'm now convinced we should go for one of those:

(software) catalog (software) channel (software) directory

or something similar. Avoiding "source" would be a plus because this term is too closely coupled with "source code" and open software user are probably not ready to understand the differences easily.

I've bumped into some difficulty with the term repository when I say it to unsuspecting new users... the word has little meaning to them.

I agree.

Software catalog or something similar is much more descriptive.

In the past, I also made the experience that you have to explain to many users what a "software catalog" is, unfortuantely this is also no self-explanatory term

How about this:

(software) library

It (in my mind anyway) describes exactly what it is... a software library or a collection of software that end-users can browse and select applications from.

well, for me at least, the term "library" might also be confused with "program libraries" - so similar problem as the possible confusion between "installation sources" and "source code" some people mentioned here before... it seems to be impossible to find a highly self-explanatory term which appeals to all users (unexperienced newbies, geeks, developers... to name only a few "categories") and which doesn't have all sorts of connotations... for me, the most important thing therefore is to be consistent in terminology - whatever the actual term may be. I think readers may get used to many terms as long as you use them consistently (throughout the software strings, documentation, translation etc.). Especially for unexperienced users it is extremely difficult to figure out what a certain topic or term is all about if it is not used consistently - not to mention the exponential growth of terms and confusion you may get when a text which contains various terms for the same thing is being translated. in many environments and sorts of texts, variation is a good thing (literature, journalistic texts etc.) - but in tech writing, consistency is a very important feature Tanja --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 25 April 2007 03:43, Tanja wrote:

...

It (in my mind anyway) describes exactly what it is... a software library or a collection of software that end-users can browse and select applications from.

I mentioned before as one of candidates term "software collection". which is the same as "collection of software" that you used here as explanation for software library, so it seems to be very self descriptive. "Software collection" is applicable to any type of items, any size and any medium, because people are used to "collection of cars" and "collection of stamps", "collection in the museum" and "collection in the book". Collections have catalog and can be obtained via different channels.

well, for me at least, the term "library" might also be confused with "program libraries" - so similar problem as the possible confusion between "installation sources" and "source code" some people mentioned here before...

I would have better chance to confuse "software library" with "program library" than "program source code" and "installation source". The second seems to be overblown as it can happen only if one talks about "installation source for program source code" and try to excessively cut corners, by using only word source. BTW, "Installation source" originally was "Source of installation" which was clumsy shortend "Source of installation software" which is exact -- Regards, Rajko. http://en.opensuse.org/Portal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@opensuse.org