I was trying to think of a name for the coming Joplin Server. For now it's called literally "Joplin Server", however this is verbose and that doesn't even make it clear what it does, especially since there's already a Joplin server embedded into the desktop and CLI app.
I thought maybe of calling it just "Scott" as in "Scott Joplin", because that's easy to remember and to type. What do you think? Or if you have any other suggestions please let me know.
Janis
I love the idea of doing things related like, as you say like Scott or Ragtime or Mapleleaf - something like that, but seeing as it is something directly related to Joplin (the app) but not standalone I can also see a need to keep it more descriptive...
@Daeraxa has hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned. This would not be a standalone application but an extension to or enhancement of the existing Joplin app; so Joplin Server, Joplin Sync Server, or Joplin Note Server, etc. sounds better to me. I think you get the gist of what I am suggesting with regards to naming 
I see what you mean, although what I don't like about these names is that they are quite long. I mean typing service joplin-note-server start is not as easy as service scott start or whatever short name we could use.
You can call it Joplin Note Server or whatever but the command would be joplinserv or something like that.
sudo service joplinserv start I feel describes exactly what you are doing; starting a server for Joplin to connect to...
I think there are a few interpretations mixed up in this conversation.
There are 3 types of names we have to be concerned about:
Joplin Server
The name of the binary can be as long as one wishes (all POSIX systems have tab-completion, so usually one only types the first letters anyway).
The name of the service however should be shorter, although there are also bash/zsh/fish completions for services, in which case the length doesn't matter either.
On the other side, everybody can create their own service names (or change them), so who really cares?
I think as long as anyone knows what the name is, it doesn't really matter. On a personal note, Scott might be an interesting choice, but has a few flaws:
As to a mixup with the server component of the client, I think that's easy to handle. It should be renamed to API server (api-server) anyway, because that's what it really is.
(As a side-note: who says that the api-server shouldn't be able to run on the server?)
The more important question we should ask ourselves is how do we handle multiple services on one machine? And/or how a server identifies itself to a client.
It's easy to let the servers use different ports and adjust the service files accordingly, but is there an ID that is sent to a client? e.g. a client should give a warning, if they are connected to server1, but at one point they are pointed to server2. What is the procedure? What will happen?
We always had issues with people pointing the client to a different sync target. Now there's an opportunity to make things like "get all data from server (remove or keep local data)", "overwrite server with local data" possible.
I asked for a design document for a reason. Is there a handshake process happening? I have tons of questions and edge cases. 
Hmm, I'll have a think about it, but as far as I can see other server software find proper names: apache, nginx, varnish, lighttpd, mysql, etc. Those are names that are right from the start without having to shorten them.
I don't think the name has to say what it does, but it needs to be short and easy to remember. Perhaps the other names mentioned by @Daeraxa might be the way to go, something related to the name "Joplin" and not necessarily to the fact that it's a server.
Ah that reminded me that I wrote down some names a while ago:
+1 for "Scott".
In Joplin sync configuration we would have options
File system:
OneDrive
Nextcloud
WebDAV
Dropbox
AWS S3
Scott
Sounds and seems good to me
Joplout
And a user new to Joplin would probably know what all the sync options were ... apart from the last one. That's why I would suggest something with "Joplin" in it. At least it gives the user a start when trying to work out what this option actually is. I would guess that a new user, seeing the "Scott" option and Googling "Scott" is unlikely to to get the Joplin sync target software on the first page. I wouldn't expect that a new user had read anything on the website or forum before installing Joplin and then posting a forum message asking about "Scott".
However they are the product. Many different clients connect to them, they are not linked to any specific software in order to access them.
Will stop now as I can see Sayre's law having an impact (again) ...
I'm lamenting my ability to think of something witty using 'syncopation' as the name here with an obvious reference to the intended function of the app's 'sync'
Yep, that's it. A "disturbance or interruption of the regular flow" so if it doesn't work properly it is STILL true to its name.
To be clear that was an attempt at humour. If the server is to have a "non-Joplin" name this is actually a good (and witty) one...
joplind ; so we're prepared for the inevitable systemd joplind merger.
Nice. However I feel that syncopation has got you so beat. (
Pun intended)
This is how I planned to name my unit file for systemd. (analogous to httpd, mongod, ....)
I'm a tone deaf fella, but fortunately Joplin can be used for for everyones unique idiosyncrasy.
(I tried hard and failed, it's a horrible word to type)
.
JServ
Jserv