Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, the Apache Software Foundation spells it httpd. Nobody paid any attention until Red Hat changed the package names. Now nobody but Red Hat pays any attention. :) Oh, is that what happened? Heh, that's kinda funny. So, technically Debian is wrong :) -- Seeya, Paul -- Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE A: Yes. Q: Are you sure? A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
I find the redhat httpd (and thus by extension the w3c naming) irritating, because despite popular belief, apache isn't the only (*nix) http server around. Yes, it's the Cadillac, but thttpd (for example) excels for things apache isn't good at (and won't be because they require different design decisions.) Now, which httpd is that in the process list, again? --DTVZ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:46:54AM -0500, Drew Van Zandt wrote:
I find the redhat httpd (and thus by extension the w3c naming)
Er, W3C? What relation does the W3C bear to Apache, or even webservers?
irritating, because despite popular belief, apache isn't the only
(*nix) http server around. Yes, it's the Cadillac, but thttpd (for
example) excels for things apache isn't good at (and won't be because
they require different design decisions.)
Now, which httpd is that in the process list, again?
Do you find bind ('named') irritating in the same way?
Regards,
--
Christopher Schmidt
Web Developer
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
Er, W3C? What relation does the W3C bear to Apache, or even webservers?
Sorry, I/O error... though I would suggest the W3C has a bit of
relation to webservers, since they use HTTP. See also
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/
Do you find bind ('named') irritating in the same way?
Slightly less irritating (in practice) since I don't currently run
BIND, but just as irritating semantically. See also SQL Server and
pretty much any similar naming ambiguity I happen across.
--DTVZ
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
Christopher Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:46:54AM -0500, Drew Van Zandt wrote:
I find the redhat httpd (and thus by extension the w3c naming)
Er, W3C? What relation does the W3C bear to Apache, or even webservers?
Errr, the webserver must spew-forth http, which is defined by the w3c?
(Just a guess here :)
Now, which httpd is that in the process list, again?
Do you find bind ('named') irritating in the same way?
Oh, don't get me started on *that* can of worms! Oops, too late! ;)
Yeah, let's call the software BIND, but the process 'named', and
squirrel all the config files away under /etc/bind, but call the
actual config file named.conf. For added clarity we set the username
under which we'll run the daemon to bind but the process to named with
a user argumemnt of bind...
Grrr. Just call everything named or bind, I don't care which, but c'mon!
--
Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE
A: Yes.
Q: Are you sure?
A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: httpd lineage [Was: The new 'Linux Foundation']
On Thursday 08 February 2007 12:24 pm, Bill McGonigle wrote: So, in redhat-land capabilities and package names and binary names are separate things - am I correct in inferring that in debian they're more integrated? Package names and binary names are generally more similar in Debian I guess, but I would say that's more a side-effect of Debian's attempts to do everything the right way, otherwise known as the Debian way, regardless of how others have done it. For better or worse, package/binary naming tends in my perspective to more closely relate to the actual software's name, rather than the purpose. -N ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: httpd lineage [Was: The new 'Linux Foundation']
Debian's attempts to do everything the right way, otherwise known as the Debian way, regardless of how others have done it I don't know that be generally true. I'm not sayin' it ain't so, just that I'm not aware of it. Care to elaborate? or were you just painting with too broad a brush out of frustration with one or a few particular item(s) ? I say this as a Debian user who admires Debian's (apparent) integrity. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
On February 08, 2007, Paul Lussier sent me the following:
Christopher Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Er, W3C? What relation does the W3C bear to Apache, or even webservers?
Errr, the webserver must spew-forth http, which is defined by the w3c?
(Just a guess here :)
W3C also maintains their own HTTP server, known as Jigsaw.
Do you find bind ('named') irritating in the same way?
Yeah, let's call the software BIND, but the process 'named', and
squirrel all the config files away under /etc/bind, but call the
actual config file named.conf. For added clarity we set the username
under which we'll run the daemon to bind but the process to named with
a user argumemnt of bind...
I've never seen an /etc/bind personally, I'm used to FreeBSD keeping the
config in /etc/named. Keep in mind that the BIND package contains more
than just a name server daemon. I think it's perfectly appropriate for
the individual parts of a package to have binary names matching their
functions. For instance the Postfix SMTP server package contains daemons
with such names as master, pickup, trivial-rewrite, smtpd, local,
tlsmgr, and qmgr. It would be very confusing, I think, if all the parts
called themselves postfix.
Granted, I have my server setup so all the postfix processes run as user
postfix, but it seems silly to blame a package for what username you
decide to run it as. BIND's named could just as happily run as user
named, or daemon, or bind, or bob, for all it cares.
--
Chip Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kyzoku.2bithacker.net/
GCM/IT d+(-) s+:++ a25? C++ UB$ P+++$ L- E--- W++ N@ o K- w O M+
V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t+@ R@ tv@ b++@ DI D+(-) G++ e++ h++ r-- y?
pgpxCRdaAvbxQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: httpd lineage [Was: The new 'Linux Foundation']
On Thursday 08 February 2007 12:49 pm, Michael ODonnell wrote: Debian's attempts to do everything the right way, otherwise known as the Debian way, regardless of how others have done it I don't know that be generally true. I'm not sayin' it ain't so, just that I'm not aware of it. Care to elaborate? or were you just painting with too broad a brush out of frustration with one or a few particular item(s) ? I say this as a Debian user who admires Debian's (apparent) integrity. I'm also a Debian user. I use it because of the Debian way which works out well 99% of the time. I can recognize however that what Debian defines as the right way to do things is not necessarily the same as what everyone else does, nor is it necessarily the only way to do things. I try not to start Debian vs. RedHat vs. whatever flamewars. I figure all the people who use something else probably have enough other problems to deal with. ;-) -N ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
Paul Lussier wrote: Christopher Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:46:54AM -0500, Drew Van Zandt wrote: I find the redhat httpd (and thus by extension the w3c naming) Er, W3C? What relation does the W3C bear to Apache, or even webservers? Errr, the webserver must spew-forth http, which is defined by the w3c? (Just a guess here :) Wrong guess. HTTP is an IETF standard defined by RFC: HTTP 1.0: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1945.txt HTTP 1.1 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt HTML was originally specified by RFC also but modern HTML and XML are specified by W3C Recommendations. Kent ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
On 2/8/07, Kent Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wrong guess. HTTP is an IETF standard defined by RFC: HTTP 1.0: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1945.txt HTTP 1.1 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt I wonder who the major contributing authors to those RFC's might be? ;-) http://www.w3.org/Protocols/Activity.html --DTVZ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:30 PM, Ben Scott wrote: I've encountered people who say things like BSD is like Linux, right?. And what do you tell them? I've downloaded, installed, configured *BSD a couple of times. Looks just like a distro-switch to me: things have funny names and they're in the wrong places. The package management system is different from the one I'm used to. apache is still spelled the same way. I haven't actually tried deploying any of this stuff, as I have a clue about what I don't know, but... Didn't we have someone offer to give a LUG tour of one or more of the BSDs? Did I miss that one? That's a session I'd like to see. I don't see anyone listed on http://wiki.gnhlug.org/twiki2/bin/view/ Organizational/MeetingSpeakers, but it's a talk I'd attend. Given that humans invented language, we sure seem to suck at using it. :) The same could be said of baseball. Or football, a few weekends ago. What we have he-ah, is a failure to communicate. Tower of Babel. Hmm. Maybe language is not our most clever invention. Ted Roche Ted Roche Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
Ted Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've downloaded, installed, configured *BSD a couple of times. Looks just like a distro-switch to me: things have funny names and they're in the wrong places. The package management system is different from the one I'm used to. Hmm, all that can be said for: (SunOS,Solaris,Ultrix,True64,HP-UX,...) vs. (*BSD, Linux) For the most part, UNIX is UNIX regardless of the spelling :) apache is still spelled the same way. Didn't RedHat spell it 'httpd' at one point? I remember looking for apache in ps, but 'ps -ef |grep apache' returned empty. When I just grepped for 'http' I found it. -- Seeya, Paul -- Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE A: Yes. Q: Are you sure? A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
On Feb 7, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Paul Lussier wrote: Hmm, all that can be said for: (SunOS,Solaris,Ultrix,True64,HP-UX,...) vs. (*BSD, Linux) For the most part, UNIX is UNIX regardless of the spelling :) That's my theory, though my experience is pretty limited. I wonder if a quick tour of Why I use Net/Free/Open BSD instead of / along with Linux could be a good talk. Or a flame war. Or both. Didn't RedHat spell it 'httpd' at one point? I remember looking for apache in ps, but 'ps -ef |grep apache' returned empty. When I just grepped for 'http' I found it. Funny. I thought everyone else spelled httpd 'apache.' Po-tay-to, po- tah-to. Ted Roche Ted Roche Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 10:38 am, Ted Roche wrote: That's my theory, though my experience is pretty limited. I wonder if a quick tour of Why I use Net/Free/Open BSD instead of / along with Linux could be a good talk. Or a flame war. Or both. I'd be interested to see a talk like that and perhaps participate in discussion, but I can hardly lead a presentation. I'm not the BSD guru I may pretend to be, but I do use OpenBSD for firewall/router/VPN gateway infrastructure points though and find it very well suited to those needs. -N ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
I'd be interested to see a talk like that and perhaps participate in discussion, but I can hardly lead a presentation. I'm not the BSD guru I may pretend to be, but I do use OpenBSD for firewall/router/VPN gateway infrastructure points though and find it very well suited to those needs. I don't think I have the notes anymore from the BSD talk I did many moons ago for the CT Free Unix Group. I just poked around archive.org and found that I talked about BSD vs System V type Unices and demoed a NetBSD install on my old Sparc IPC back on March 8th, 2001. I don't really have a concrete reason these days to choose BSD vs Linux. OpenBSD (and now crossported to Net Free) is the *excellent* load-balancing/redundancy protocol, CARP. I used that and FreeBSD at my last job to have an active/passive RADIUS setup. I also was trying at one point to see how many different NetBSD platforms I could run in my house (right now, it stands at about 10 different NetBSD arches). I've run both Open and Free in production at various jobs as well. -Shawn ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
httpd lineage [Was: The new 'Linux Foundation']
On Feb 7, 2007, at 10:22, Paul Lussier wrote: Didn't RedHat spell it 'httpd' at one point? It's always been spelled 'httpd'. I seem to remember UIUC installing theirs in /usr/local/etc/httpd . Over the years most of mine lived at /usr/local/apache/bin/httpd until it got modular and Redhat started packaging all the useful modules and I could abandon my in- house scripts (that took a day to figure out) to compile apache with *three* foreign modules. Back in the days on the mod_perl list the first question was always, are you using redhat's mod_perl? They've done a tremendous job at least since the Fedora line began. I used to be able to 'ps ax | grep apache' because of pathing - with Redhat's in /usr/sbin/httpd you can't do that anymore - maybe that's what you're recalling. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: httpd lineage [Was: The new 'Linux Foundation']
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 12:44 pm, Bill McGonigle wrote: It's always been spelled 'httpd'. I seem to remember UIUC installing I used to be able to 'ps ax | grep apache' because of pathing - with Redhat's in /usr/sbin/httpd you can't do that anymore - maybe that's what you're recalling. I think that was a Debian-based vs. RedHat-based distro joke/reference. Debian packages of Apache call it apache. -N ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: httpd lineage [Was: The new 'Linux Foundation']
On Feb 7, 2007, at 13:20, Neil Joseph Schelly wrote: I think that was a Debian-based vs. RedHat-based distro joke/ reference. Over my head, I'm sure. :) Debian packages of Apache call it apache. In the process list or package name? Paul was talking 'ps'. I guess you could modify the apache build scripts to make a binary called 'apache'. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: httpd lineage [Was: The new 'Linux Foundation']
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 06:16:18PM -0500, Bill McGonigle wrote: On Feb 7, 2007, at 13:20, Neil Joseph Schelly wrote: I think that was a Debian-based vs. RedHat-based distro joke/ reference. Over my head, I'm sure. :) Debian packages of Apache call it apache. In the process list or package name? Paul was talking 'ps'. I guess you could modify the apache build scripts to make a binary called 'apache'. In the process list. /usr/sbin/apache and /usr/sbin/apache2 are the binaries that Debian ships with the apache and apache2 packages. Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt Web Developer ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
On 2/7/07, Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: apache is still spelled the same way. Didn't RedHat spell it 'httpd' at one point? Actually, the Apache Software Foundation spells it httpd. Nobody paid any attention until Red Hat changed the package names. Now nobody but Red Hat pays any attention. :) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
The new 'Linux Foundation'
Was just reading thru slashdot, and found this interesting.. http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=2007012113540789 Basically, Open Source Development Lab and the Free Standards Group are joining forces to create 'The Linux Foundation'. Now don't get me wrong, it's great and good that OSDL and the FSG are joining forces. But when did open source turn INTO Linux? :-) Please, no flames, it's not worth the electrons, but I guess it bothers me that KDE = Linux, ProFTPd = Linux, exim = Linux, OpenOffice = Linux, if you catch my inference. Comments? -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
On 1/22/07, Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess it bothers me that KDE = Linux, ProFTPd = Linux, exim = Linux, OpenOffice = Linux, if you catch my inference. Even BSD = Linux, to some people. Linux != Linux, which is confusing. (Most people don't use Linux alone to refer to the kernel, these days.) Comments? /* * linux/arch/i386/kernel/setup.c * * Copyright (C) 1995 Linus Torvalds * This file handles the architecture-dependent parts of initialization * */ Oh, is that not what you meant? ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
On 1/22/07, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/22/07, Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess it bothers me that KDE = Linux, ProFTPd = Linux, exim = Linux, OpenOffice = Linux, if you catch my inference. Even BSD = Linux, to some people. Linux != Linux, which is confusing. (Most people don't use Linux alone to refer to the kernel, these days.) I have a feeling the BSD lists might disagree. :-) Comments? /* * linux/arch/i386/kernel/setup.c * * Copyright (C) 1995 Linus Torvalds * This file handles the architecture-dependent parts of initialization * */ Oh, is that not what you meant? ;-) I KNEW it! Ben runs a 386 :-D And not only that (by SCO logic anyway), Bens KERNEL headers where stolen line for line! -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: The new 'Linux Foundation'
On 1/22/07, Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even BSD = Linux, to some people. I have a feeling the BSD lists might disagree. :-) Not those people. ;-) Seriously, though, Linux is starting to mean anything that smells like Unix, or has touched Free/Open Source Software, much like Unix has come to mean anything that smells like the 'Unix Time-Sharing System' created by Ken Thompson, et. al., at ATT Bell Labs. I've encountered people who say things like BSD is like Linux, right?. Given that humans invented language, we sure seem to suck at using it. :) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
