httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Names
Date Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:38:25 GMT
Ben Laurie wrote:
> 
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > 
> > Alexei Kosut wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > >
> > > > The executable under Win32 is called "apache". Under Unix, it is called
> > > > "httpd". Why?
> > >
> > > Because on Unix, we've got years (4 - which is a lot in Interent years)
> > > worth of legacy to contend with. People are used to it being called
> > > httpd, so it is.
> > >
> > 
> > Not only that, but httpd follows in the UNIX traditional of daemon
> > names, ala ftpd, telnetd, etc..
> 
> Fine, but what about the documentation problem?
> 

It's just that, a problem :-)

No really, I think that some sort of agreement is needed. For example,
the httpd.conf file vs. the apachectl file.

I, for one, would say that we should rename httpd to apache.
We should wait for 2.0 though to do that. In the meantime, we note
that the server is called Apache, and under UNIX the process name
is httpd and under Win32 it's apache. Ugg.

-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"

Mime
View raw message