Lemmy

12572 readers

3 users here now

Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.

For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to !meta@lemmy.ml.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

nutomic@lemmy.ml

would it be simpler for people if we said "server" instead of "instance"? (programming.dev)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Die4Ever@programming.dev to c/lemmy@lemmy.ml

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

or maybe some other terminology would be better? lots of people get confused when you ask them to choose an instance, sometimes I think even the word "proxy", "host", or "hub" is simpler

the specific terms aren't my point, just a discussion to see if we can come up with a better name

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Die4Ever@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I kinda don't hate the idea of coming up with our own unique name like Burrow, feels like something Apple would do lol. But then it wouldn't be a common term across the fediverse, and also I feel like it would require explanation and then you'd have to choose how to explain it anyways, and you'd still have to use a word like server, instance, portal, provider, etc.

[–] Maoo@hexbear.net -3 points 1 year ago

Both sever and instance have multiple meanings when it comes to deploying Lemmy though.

An instance is running Lemmy publicly, but also just running the APU creates an instance of that API. To scale, you'd probably run multiple instances of the web API.

Same applies to server, but worse. You could also call the web API a web server. You could also call a VM a server. You could also call the physical machine a VM is on a server.

When it comes to naming stuff, it's best to find something unambiguous if it's a core defining thing you want to tell people about. Private corps do this to build a "brand", which is still a valuable thing for open projects so that they can gain adoption.