I'm not a huge fan of cutesey names but a lot of those names are variations on or homages to Kubernetes (Greek for "Helmsman"): e.g Skipper, Harbor, and Helm from your list.
Re:Names should be cute, not descriptive
by wlonkly on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @07:00PM
(#34333222)
Some of those have companies attached, which have interests in a unique, memorable, and protectable name. Others are definitely just cute though.
That said, I have to object to including linkerd. It links services together, and it's a daemon. Can't get much clearer than that.
Re:Names should be cute, not descriptive
by mrweasel on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @03:33AM
(#34336374)
The problem with linkerd is that we already use the word "linker" and have an established nomenclature for adding a "d" to indicate a daemon. While linkerd might be a daemon, it's not a linker daemon.
It's this needless layer of jargon that doesn't help with the understand of the solution.
Sure, if there's a reasonable chance that your project becomes absolutely massive, then a unique name is a great idea. For internal project, don't be cute, just call the thing by its function. Your warehouse management system should just be "the WMS", not FluffoTron. Should it happen to take on new functionality, then either split that out in a separate project, or just rename the whole thing.