I'm not sure that Veritas was the first one to use the term snapshot in the 
way it is being used now.  NetApps had snapshots (copy-on-write) since day 
one, and they came out in 1992.  Veritas was formed three years earlier, 
but I don't know when they started using the term.  There were also other 
snapshot products like dbsnap (who was bought up) that were out there in 
the early nineties.  The reason I say it's irrelevant is that they didn't 
copyright it.  They just needed a term to refer to a feature, and used 
that.  Possibly later, the industry decided that this term fit something 
else much better, and they are using it.  Veritas even agreed with them and 
followed suit by using the term for filesystem snapshots.

I'm not sure what we're arguing.  ;)  Here's how I would see it if I was 
Veritas:

1. Let's just say I used the term first (referring to full copies) and 
could prove it.
2. My own company also used the term to mean something else.  (Not sure 
which happened first.)
3. The rest of the industry started using the term to mean something else.
4. I could:
    (a) keep using both terms for both products
    (b) use the term only for copy on write products
    (c) use the term only for full copy products
    (d) pick a whole new term for both!

(a) makes no sense, as it confuses even Veritas-only customers (thus this 
discussion).
(b) follows the industry and reduces confusion for everybody
(c) would be REALLY confusing, as NOONE else uses the term in this manner,
     and would really make things hard on those of us who are trying to
     explain the whole industry to people.
(d) That's what a lot of vendors have actually done with other things.
     Call it whatever you want, as long as you don't pick a name that the 
rest of the
     industry is using to mean something else.
     This would be the equivalent of NetApps starting to use the term filer
     to mean something other than what everybody means when they say filer.

I am in favor of anything that reduces confusion, and I think that one 
company using the same term to refer to two different technologies is 
confusing.


At 11:24 AM 7/10/2001 -0700, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, W. Curtis Preston wrote:
> > I would submit that their use of the term snapshot for volume copies is
> > confusing and should be dropped.
>
>It's tough to say that you should rename a feature because people who
>came *after* you chose to define it differently.  I disagree that prior
>use is unimportant.  Sun, for instance, calls it an "Instant Image" or
>somesuch, and it's not an image at all.
>--
>ROGER B.A. 
>KLORESE                                          rogerk AT QueerNet DOT ORG
>PO Box 14309                                            San Francisco, CA 
>94114
>"Go without hate. But not without rage. Heal the world."        -- Paul 
>Monette
>
>_______________________________________________
>Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

---
W. Curtis Preston
Principal Consultant for Storage Designs,   your storage experts
Voice: 760 710 7017                            Fax: 760 710 7019
Webmaster: http://www.backupcentral.com curtis AT backupcentral DOT com