[Galene] Re: suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface

["Gabriel Kerneis" <gabriel@kerneis.info>]

On Sun, 3 Jan 2021, at 11:51, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> >> A better name would be welcome, but "anonymous" is a bad choice -- an
> >> anonymous user is just one that has an empty username.  This is controlled
> >> by the "allow-anonymous" field.
> 
> > "muted" ?

Why muted? Can't an anonymous user speak like any other?

> Too close, it will lead to confusion.  See, it's like "Juliusz" -- too
> close to a name in English, people tend to mis-spell it.  On the other
> hand, nobody ever mis-spells "Chroboczek".  (Except the administration of
> the University of Paris, but they're a completely different category.)

I have a hard time understanding the value proposition here, if users can pick arbitrary pseudonyms anyway. In the chat in particular, having  distinct usernames to distinguish who is speaking (albeit anonymously) seems like a feature to me. What about not allowing empty usernames, but generating (distinct) pseudonyms automatically if left empty?

Jitsi uses "a jitsi user" (maybe with an added counter #1), which I don't like very much. Google uses animals (at least for user icons), which reminds me of Ubuntu codenames.

Gabriel