Hi all,
Colin (phoul) and I started working on the support team docs a few weeks ago, and it brought to our attention just how much onion sites/onion services/hidden services are still being used interchangeably. Since this is confusing, we checked in with folks about which one is preferred, and onion sites seems to be the clear favorite. However, internally and on Twitter, I still see us using onion services (and worse, hidden services).
So, I want to propose that we choose onion sites or onion services once and for all (I'm in favor of the former because most users have no idea what is meant by "services"; it sounds too vague). Then, whenever we see somewhere on torproject.org or any of our documentation or whatever that still reads hidden services or onion services, that we kill it with fire.
Thanks for reading,
Alison
Hi Alison,
Just to clarify, the feedback I received was that "Onion Service" is generally the preferred term; however "Onion site" could be used as a sub-class of "Onion Service" to refer exclusively to websites. Due to this, the user manual[1] has been changed to use the term "Onion Service".
That said, we are still very inconsistent about how we use these terms in many other places.
[1]: https://tb-manual.torproject.org/linux/en-US/
Alison Macrina:
Hi all,
Colin (phoul) and I started working on the support team docs a few weeks ago, and it brought to our attention just how much onion sites/onion services/hidden services are still being used interchangeably. Since this is confusing, we checked in with folks about which one is preferred, and onion sites seems to be the clear favorite. However, internally and on Twitter, I still see us using onion services (and worse, hidden services).
So, I want to propose that we choose onion sites or onion services once and for all (I'm in favor of the former because most users have no idea what is meant by "services"; it sounds too vague). Then, whenever we see somewhere on torproject.org or any of our documentation or whatever that still reads hidden services or onion services, that we kill it with fire.
Thanks for reading,
Alison
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 07:34:38AM +0000, Colin Childs wrote:
Just to clarify, the feedback I received was that "Onion Service" is generally the preferred term; however "Onion site" could be used as a sub-class of "Onion Service" to refer exclusively to websites. Due to this, the user manual[1] has been changed to use the term "Onion Service".
Right. Onion site is a fine name for an onion service that is served by a webserver (akin to the word 'website').
The phrase onion site, like the word website, reinforces the "consumer" model of the Internet. Onion services are inherently better at being peer-to-peer (that is, bidirectional rather than unidirectional) compared to ordinary Internet services, because they ignore NAT, and because their addressing scheme is independent from static IP addresses.
As Yawning pointed out, Ricochet is a great example of an onion service, but there's no webserver serving pages, so my Ricochet client is not an onion site.
At least, that's the terminology we seem to have converged on. There is still time to change it if people feel strongly enough.
That said, we are still very inconsistent about how we use these terms in many other places.
Agreed. I had an idea to do the terminology switchover on the Tor website just before the 32c3 onion services talk, and then announce it there. I didn't get enough momentum to do it then, but I'm still a fan.
--Roger
On 04 May 2016, at 11:02, Roger Dingledine arma@mit.edu wrote:
That said, we are still very inconsistent about how we use these terms in many other places.
Agreed. I had an idea to do the terminology switchover on the Tor website just before the 32c3 onion services talk, and then announce it there. I didn't get enough momentum to do it then, but I'm still a fan.
It seemed like the consensus was to conicide the release of new onion service scheme with the naming change. I think that's a good idea. Anything that says hidden service will refer to the thing we have now, onion services are the more secure thing that we'll have then.
On 4 May 2016, at 19:19, Sebastian Hahn mail@sebastianhahn.net wrote:
On 04 May 2016, at 11:02, Roger Dingledine arma@mit.edu wrote:
That said, we are still very inconsistent about how we use these terms in many other places.
Agreed. I had an idea to do the terminology switchover on the Tor website just before the 32c3 onion services talk, and then announce it there. I didn't get enough momentum to do it then, but I'm still a fan.
It seemed like the consensus was to conicide the release of new onion service scheme with the naming change. I think that's a good idea. Anything that says hidden service will refer to the thing we have now, onion services are the more secure thing that we'll have then.
Makes sense to me. I'm also happy with a gradual transition to "onion service" as we are developing proposal 224.
Tim
Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)
teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP 968F094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n
Roger Dingledine:
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 07:34:38AM +0000, Colin Childs wrote:
Just to clarify, the feedback I received was that "Onion Service" is generally the preferred term; however "Onion site" could be used as a sub-class of "Onion Service" to refer exclusively to websites. Due to this, the user manual[1] has been changed to use the term "Onion Service".
Right. Onion site is a fine name for an onion service that is served by a webserver (akin to the word 'website').
The phrase onion site, like the word website, reinforces the "consumer" model of the Internet. Onion services are inherently better at being peer-to-peer (that is, bidirectional rather than unidirectional) compared to ordinary Internet services, because they ignore NAT, and because their addressing scheme is independent from static IP addresses.
As Yawning pointed out, Ricochet is a great example of an onion service, but there's no webserver serving pages, so my Ricochet client is not an onion site.
At least, that's the terminology we seem to have converged on. There is still time to change it if people feel strongly enough.
That said, we are still very inconsistent about how we use these terms in many other places.
Agreed. I had an idea to do the terminology switchover on the Tor website just before the 32c3 onion services talk, and then announce it there. I didn't get enough momentum to do it then, but I'm still a fan.
--Roger
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't realize before now that we were using onion services and onion sites distinctly, but it makes sense given the use cases. In any case, let's be consistent, and I think we should also have a glossary of terms in the support docs.
Alison
Alison wrote:
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't realize before now that we were using onion services and onion sites distinctly, but it makes sense given the use cases. In any case, let's be consistent, and I think we should also have a glossary of terms in the support docs.
Also, `onionsites` is intended to be one word, like website. It's a bit pedantic, but thought worth mentioning in this context.
~Griffin
hi!
On 05/04/2016 06:54 AM, Alison wrote:
In any case, let's be consistent, and I think we should also have a glossary of terms in the support docs.
+1k here so useful for the user and for translation twitter has that as well: https://support.twitter.com/articles/166337
On Wed, 4 May 2016 01:30:13 +0000 Alison Macrina alison@libraryfreedomproject.org wrote:
So, I want to propose that we choose onion sites or onion services once and for all (I'm in favor of the former because most users have no idea what is meant by "services"; it sounds too vague). Then, whenever we see somewhere on torproject.org or any of our documentation or whatever that still reads hidden services or onion services, that we kill it with fire.
Disagree, because this further reinforces the idea that the internet is centered around port 80/443, and is nonsensical given some of our prominent use cases ("Ricochet is based around Tor onion services" vs "Ricochet is based around Tor onion sites". One of these statements is correct, and one is not).
Regards,
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 07:36:23AM +0000, Yawning Angel wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2016 01:30:13 +0000 Alison Macrina alison@libraryfreedomproject.org wrote:
So, I want to propose that we choose onion sites or onion services once and for all (I'm in favor of the former because most users have no idea what is meant by "services"; it sounds too vague). Then, whenever we see somewhere on torproject.org or any of our documentation or whatever that still reads hidden services or onion services, that we kill it with fire.
Disagree, because this further reinforces the idea that the internet is centered around port 80/443, and is nonsensical given some of our prominent use cases ("Ricochet is based around Tor onion services" vs "Ricochet is based around Tor onion sites". One of these statements is correct, and one is not).
To further Yawning's point and provide an example of using both terms: Ricochet is an onion service in which each Ricochet client creates a local onionsite that others connect to.
aloha, Paul
tor-project@lists.torproject.org
-
Alison -
Alison Macrina -
Colin Childs -
Griffin Boyce -
Isabela -
Paul Syverson -
Roger Dingledine -
Sebastian Hahn -
Tim Wilson-Brown - teor -
Yawning Angel