httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: Names
Date Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:25:39 GMT
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> 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.

That isn't good enough. Either we call the Unix version apache, the
Windows version httpd, or I sulk.

I still think my original suggestion is the way to go: call the Unix
version apache and softlink httpd to it.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache

Mime
View raw message