On 18 Mar 2010, at 08:37, Andrew Ford wrote:
>> People will continue to refer to it as just "Apache". The documentation
>> could refer to it as "the server" or "the web server" or "the httpd program"
>> as seems appropriate in the context, having established in introductory
>> material that the proper name was "the Apache Web Server" (and pointing out
>> that Apache is actually the name of the foundation and can be applied to a
>> wider set of projects). To me such usage just sounds more natural and less
>> forced.
+1. "Apache" works as a name. "Apache2" works, and is out there. Clumsy
things like "HTTPD" don't work as a name, and wrapping it only works so long
as there's a contraction ("apache[2]") people can use in real life.
> Actually, there might be more of a chance of getting a new identity to stick
> by calling it "Apache Web Server (AWS)" and then referring to the
> abbreviation AWS everywhere.
Rather ugly and a hostage to fortune. Do you talk out of your AWS?
> . It has a certain similarity to "IIS", which might not be a bad thing.
Interesting association. But we're the senior server, not them! Aping their
name
feels like putting ourselves into the junior spot. MS marketing will love us!
--
Nick Kew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
