Thanks, that's a good question. Here's my thoughts: 1) Generally, we should have a good reason to change the wording. Even if it's currently not ideal, it creates a disturbance to change such words after many years in a software with a large user base. I would expect some users to ask the question if Back In Time has changed its behavior after the change in wording. 2) To me, a "snapshot" is associated with partial/incremental backups (in the sense that each "snapshot" is incomplete by itself). This might contribute to the usual confusion about the way we store hardlinks. This could be a good reason to change "snapshot" to "backup". 3) The word "backup" creates a stronger impression that each "backup" is a complete set of files from the source (which is true, because we use hardlinks). This would also be a good reason to change the wording. Hope I've made myself clear :) Michael On 05.11.2024 12:02, c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
Hello folks,
I am interested in your opinions about this.
Looking into my foggy memory it seems that I somehow asked this question before. But I couldn't find out when and where. So my apologize if this is a duplicate.
In my experience around BIT I would say that the term "Backup" is more appropriate for what we currently call "Snapshot". So I would like to change that.
- For someone not knowing BIT (e.g. potential new users and translators) the term "Backup" is clearer. - Snapshot might be understood by some people as an image of the file system. - When writing about BIT (in Issues, Forums, etc) most of the time I do use the term "backup" out of the stomach without thinking about it.
I do understand that "Snapshot" is kind of fancy and points to the timeline feature. But I would prefer to use the technical correct term "Backup" instead of a marketing term.
What do you think?
Regards, Christian