From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Ouellette Subject: Re: Node.js and it's future in debian Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 13:08:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20120503170842.GE19468@flying-gecko.net> 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> <000c01cd2948$30482130$90d86390$@ro> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-disposition: inline In-reply-to: <000c01cd2948$30482130$90d86390$@ro> Sender: linux-hams-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Marius Petrescu Cc: linux-hams@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:17:08PM +0300, Marius Petrescu wrote: > > 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. I certainly agree with your comments. The confusion can arise because Node.js is the project's name, node is one of the names of a binary in the Node.js package. Pat