Very difficult to discuss with the fiance without know the terminology yet lol

  • amiuhle@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    But that’s a provider/customer relationship, on the fediverse it isn’t.

    • unfazedbeaver@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Agree on a technical level, but in terms of the average netizen being able to visualize the relationship, “providers” makes it much easier

      • amiuhle@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        I don’t think we should try to visualize something that’s not there just because it’s (supposedly) easier for the average netizen.

        • unfazedbeaver@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Its not too far off. No, its not like an ISP or a central server, but each instance IS a “provider” of a server and service. It’s not the worst moniker I have heard

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      For now. Commercial servers are possible, especially if communities become multi-instance in the future.

      Every mature decentralized service calls them providers. Phone providers, ISPs, email providers, etc. I guess usenet just calls them “news servers”, though.

    • Ferk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      It’s provider/consumer (not customer, something being a “provider” doesn’t necessarily mean they are selling stuff).

      We are consumers, we consume the content that the instances provide, as content providers.