Discussion: New terminology for "Launcher"

[betterthantrav]

This topic is to discuss the possibility of replacing the term Launcher with something more fitting.

@happybeing came up with an interesting point about the term Launcher.

@happybeing

Separate point: writing the above makes me question again why we call it “Launcher” - it was once going to manage SAFE Apps (maintain a list from which users would choose what to run - hence launch) but now it is just an access point, so maybe we should reconsider that. I think “Launcher” is confusing to users and developers. Let’s kill the Launcher!

Launcher implies that it will launch an application. This is no longer the case. The launcher is more of an access point into the SAFE Network.

[betterthantrav]

My suggestion is to call it a gateway. Because, gateway implies allowing access.

Edit: Gateway to the future
Gateway to the SAFE Network
Safegate “Kinda like Stargate”

[betterthantrav]

@happybeing

@betterthantrav:

Launcher implies it will launch an application. I would suggest calling it a gateway. Gateway implies allowing access.

Gateway is technically correct but a bit rubbish (generic, technical - how many granny’s will think “network access point/connection” when they read “gateway”?). How about just calling it SAFE Network as in…

Install SAFEnetworkRun SAFEnetworkUse SAFEnetworkStart SAFEnetworkTo run the SAFE-FS App first install and run SAFEnetworketc

…

[betterthantrav]

Integrating the Launcher/Gateway/Connector/HeavenlyPortal into another
thing seems wrong for many reasons, separation of concerns, release
speed, clarity…

I like the idea of calling it a portal

[Traktion]

Whatever we call it, can we have command line options to allow automated infrastructure to use it, please?

[nowfeelsafer]

SAFE Haven or SAFE House ?

[goindeep]

I like gateway. Should just called it The Door.