It's a delicate point and I often have trouble getting
people to understand it but... it is a BAD idea to have
the executable's name the same as: the brand name, the
company name, or the product name.
Why? Well because
1. The executable is not the product, only part
of it.
2. You want a name that is VERY stable since it
is used in hundreds of thousands of line of
code most of them not under you control. Some
of which the customers have lost the ablity to
maintain. When you change it your customers are
made miserable (many won't even upgrade because
they don't have the time to deal find all the
code with the name in it.
3. Those other names are not stable. Legal issues
can force them to change. For example if a
terrorist group springs up in the US killing
thousands of innocent children one might design
a name change was in order. Most products I've
been involved with decide at some point to become
two products: Apache Light and Apache Professional.
In a commercial organisation the people making the third
set of choices are never deeply aware of the second set of
issues.
So I'd suggest for calling them both httpd. The doc
chould then say:
The product is call "the Apache Web Server from the Apache
Group" or "Apache" for short. The product includes these
elements: documentation, sources, configuration files, and
once built an executable called httpd. The mnemonic
name "httpd" comes from HTTP (the protocol the Web Server
implements) and daemon (as in Maxwell's Deamon).
Finally links and scripts of various forms are a hack. It
just makes the customer copy around a bundle of things
when he moves stuff - and hence it still breaks his
software and so he won't upgrade.
- ben h.
|