<html><head></head><body><div>On Wed, 2016-01-06 at 21:00 -0200, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Ted Gould <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ted@ubuntu.com" target="_blank">ted@ubuntu.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>So we have three different behaviors, with the three names: "apps", "services" and "GUI apps"</div></div><br></blockquote><div>We have snaps that contain applications. These apps may be run in the background.. it's of course okay to continue to call these services if you wish, since that's terminology that exists and is well known. It's also okay to call the graphic applications as such, and it's okay to call the command line applications as such. Again, that's all common terminology.</div><div><br></div><div>That said, the dichotomy you are driving there is not what we're going for. Graphic applications are applications. Applications that run as services are also applications.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not driving to a particular point, more trying to show that the naming doesn't extend well for even these few cases, and we have even more on the Ubuntu phone today. We expect the number to grow. Certainly we can provide our own scheme for naming these things, and then provide a mapping to the Snap naming, but that's ugly and generally confusing. I'd prefer to have a terminology framework that can grow to handle all of the cases elegantly.</div><div><br></div><div>This sucks: "A Unity Application is a Snap Application that has…"</div><div><br></div><div>Ted</div><div><br></div></body></html>