After the recent problems, and significant hardware changes to Server 2, I think that it is only right to rename it to Server 2.1. After all the name Server 2 is now associated with downtime and issues. Time to turn over a new leaf with Server 2.1
What do you think?
| SoftStag wrote: |
| What do you think? |
Personally, I think this is a really dumb idea. There are 2 servers - server 1 and server 2.
There are not 2.1 servers.Yest there are not 
I agree with Animal. Server 2.1 just sounds stupid
No, no. Rename it Server 2.1, the kids'll never notice.
the number of a version increases everytime an improvement is made to a piece of SOFTWARE, like adding new features, solvng bugs, etc. Now i know this is used for software but the ideea is not that bad, i really like it and consider it original .. that is ofcourse if it should really be considered an upgraded version of the server, which only time will tell 
Our server isn't a piece of software.
Anyway, we did consider naming the servers before, but we couldn't come up with a cool name.
We decided to stick with Server 1 & Server 2 at the moment, maybe in the near future they will be named 
. frisrv 1 and frisrv 2 , Just thought I throw in a few names. It probably a bad names anyway. 
How about this:
server1:server1
server2:dont-forget-to-bakup-your-data
Call them Bondings Sr. and Bondings Jr.
