httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bh...@gensym.com (Ben Hyde)
Subject Re: Names
Date Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:45:53 GMT
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.

Mime
View raw message