From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Marius Petrescu" Subject: RE: Node.js and it's future in debian Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 19:17:08 +0300 Message-ID: <000c01cd2948$30482130$90d86390$@ro> References: <20120501205524.GI30521@flying-gecko.net> <20120501215305.GA1250@burratino> <20120501221659.GA11430@flying-gecko.net> <20120502065003.GB2410@burratino> <20120502165031.GC7390@flying-gecko.net> <20120502171349.GA23806@burratino> <20120502200426.GF7390@flying-gecko.net> <4FA2A557.1080103@trinnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FA2A557.1080103@trinnet.net> Content-Language: en-us Sender: linux-hams-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-hams@vger.kernel.org Now I really subscribe di David's arguments but I would add something else. Node.js is a server-side JavaScript environment, so the "js" is a legitimate, even useful addition. Node on the other hand is exactly what its name states: a communication node. axnode is not correct since it also supports pure tcp/ip, netrom and rose (and virtual any other protocol which allows a character oriented p2p link). So why get the javascript out of a java script environment and put a restrictive title to a communication node tool? And by the way, most know node.js as node.js, so the confusion will be even greater if you change the name. Marius, YO2LOJ -----Original Message----- From: linux-hams-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-hams-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of David Ranch Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 18:34 To: Patrick Ouellette Cc: Jonathan Nieder; node@packages.debian.org; nodejs@packages.debian.org; debian-hams@lists.debian.org; linux-hams@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Node.js and it's future in debian Hello Gentlemen, I thought I'd chime in since the linux-hams@vger list was added to the thread and give one Packet HAM's perspective. Specifically, if one proposal is to rename the long existing /usr/sbin/node binary to /usr/sbin/axnode, why couldn't the "new guy" node.js binary be renamed to something like /usr/sbin/nodejs? The later seems more of a reasonable proposal. From my experience, many MANY Linux hams have customized scripts that startup some very elaborate HAM systems. For many, these scripts weren't written by them and the changing of the node command could be very difficult for some. The other aspect is if this change came into a package update that could impact production systems in VERY remote sites. This could cause all kinds ugliness that can be easily avoided. I can appreciate Debian's goal to keep things moving forward but I'd argue that a binary name of "/usr/sbin/nodejs" would be a lot more informative with the two additional characters than just calling it "node" (and disrupting a well known binary name for us Linux packet hams). --David KI6ZHD