> On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > > When I say you're a user of router software, I'm not pushing the > > definition of user any further than you are when you say I'm a user of > > PHP-nuke or Apache.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote: > Here, I think Apache is closer to router software than to PHPNuke. Wow. I'd say almost exactly the opposite. Especially where apache is actually generating pages (via apache-licensed CGI, modules, or directory listings). A router does nothing to the data transmitted (ignore NAT routers and QoS/TTL info for now), but both PHPNuke and Apache make data available in a more usable format. As do groff and lpr, IMO. > PHPNuke is distinguishable because it's not designed to do some standard > thing -- instead, users choose to visit PHPNuke sites in part because > of their specific, unique features. As an example, I read Luke Francl's > blog more than I read Teresa Nielsen-Hayden's. Why? Because Luke > Francl users software which supports RSS output, so I can get it > syndicated. Huh? How is implementing RSS any different than implementing HTTP? > On the other hand, what web server someone uses affects my usage of the > site not at all. I have trouble understanding how you can say this. Are you not less likely to visit a site that doesn't support HTTP than you are to visit one that doesn't support RSS. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
