Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:28:46AM +, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Noirin Shirley noi...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Dan Poirier poir...@pobox.com wrote: How about Apache Web Server? Httpd is just the name of one of the files, and not even the one people run to start it most of the time. Apache HTTP Server is fine, but Apache Web Server is equally correct, easier to pronounce, and less geeky :-) I also like this option. From the peanut gallery, eww. =P +1 to Apache HTTP Server (long name) and httpd (short name). I don't see a compelling reason to rebrand now - we would only want to do so if we wanted to do that as a major 'publicity' push which I doubt is on our collective radar screen. (BTW, the InConSisteNt capitalization always bugged me to no end...) -- justin Another +1 from the peanut gallery for Apache HTTP Server and httpd. -aaron
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Noirin Shirley noi...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Dan Poirier poir...@pobox.com wrote: How about Apache Web Server? Httpd is just the name of one of the files, and not even the one people run to start it most of the time. Apache HTTP Server is fine, but Apache Web Server is equally correct, easier to pronounce, and less geeky :-) I also like this option. From the peanut gallery, eww. =P +1 to Apache HTTP Server (long name) and httpd (short name). I don't see a compelling reason to rebrand now - we would only want to do so if we wanted to do that as a major 'publicity' push which I doubt is on our collective radar screen. (BTW, the InConSisteNt capitalization always bugged me to no end...) -- justin
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Dan Poirier poir...@pobox.com wrote: How about Apache Web Server? Httpd is just the name of one of the files, and not even the one people run to start it most of the time. Apache HTTP Server is fine, but Apache Web Server is equally correct, easier to pronounce, and less geeky :-) I also like this option. N
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
On Mar 16, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Mar 16, 2010, at 5:48 AM, rbo...@apache.org wrote: Author: rbowen Date: Tue Mar 16 12:48:31 2010 New Revision: 923712 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=923712view=rev Log: In as much as we can be said to have consensus on anything at all, we appear to have consensus that we will refer to the product (in the documentation) as Apache HTTPD, or HTTPD for short, and to the server binary executable as codehttpd/code. Here's a few changes to that effect. WTF? -1 Apologies. The goal is to stop using 'Apache', by itself, to refer to the server, and to replace it with something that distinguishes the foundation from this particular project. This was requested by wrowe, from a different angle, by Sally and the PRC. I'll cease in this endeavor until there's some kind of agreement as to what it should be replaced with. It appears that we're a ways away from that. --Rich
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
On Mar 16, 2010, at 5:48 AM, rbo...@apache.org wrote: Author: rbowen Date: Tue Mar 16 12:48:31 2010 New Revision: 923712 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=923712view=rev Log: In as much as we can be said to have consensus on anything at all, we appear to have consensus that we will refer to the product (in the documentation) as Apache HTTPD, or HTTPD for short, and to the server binary executable as codehttpd/code. Here's a few changes to that effect. WTF? -1 I thought the only people who ever capitalize HTTP in httpd are clueless lawyers. httpd is the product name. It is not, and never has been, HTTPD, HTTPd, or any other misspelling of d. It's that bloody thing we put in the package name, like httpd-2.2.15.tar.gz which should really be apache-httpd-2.2.15.tar.gz but that's another discussion. Roy
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote: On Mar 16, 2010, at 5:48 AM, rbo...@apache.org wrote: Author: rbowen Date: Tue Mar 16 12:48:31 2010 New Revision: 923712 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=923712view=rev Log: In as much as we can be said to have consensus on anything at all, we appear to have consensus that we will refer to the product (in the documentation) as Apache HTTPD, or HTTPD for short, and to the server binary executable as codehttpd/code. Here's a few changes to that effect. I thought the only people who ever capitalize HTTP in httpd are clueless lawyers. httpd is the product name. We've never been even remotely consistent about the name of the product. In some places, we use httpd, but that leads to some horrible confusion between the product and the command. In other places, we use Apache HTTP Server, but then when we switch to httpd because it's less wordy or fits the sentence better, it's not at all clear that httpd and Apache HTTP Server mean the same thing. In a few places, we use Apache Web Server, just for variety (and, I've heard it argued, because it can serve over more than just HTTP). It is not, and never has been, HTTPD, HTTPd, or any other misspelling of d. It's that bloody thing we put in the package name, like I don't really see how the package name proves anything - Tomcat packages have names like apache-tomcat-5.5.28.tar.gz, but I've never been called clueless (or a lawyer) for capitalising the project name differently to the package name. Sure, httpd makes sense as an all-small command. But I see no reason that it's stupid to distinguish between the command and the product, and nothing you've said convinces me that HTTPD or HTTPD or Httpd or any other product name that removes the ambiguity is any worse than calling the product Web Server. Noirin
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
On 3/16/2010 12:37 PM, Noirin Shirley wrote: In some places, we use httpd, but that leads to some horrible confusion between the product and the command. I guess I'm not seeing the disconnect. If a reader cannot parse httpd as shorthand the Apache HTTP Server program, then we have more serious issues in helping them become a web server administrator. I was a bit confused in this commit message w.r.t. concensus. Noirin and yourself clearly take one view, Roy and I have expounded a very contrary view, and I haven't see the rest of this dialog (following dev@, docs@, users@ etc).
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 3/16/2010 12:37 PM, Noirin Shirley wrote: In some places, we use httpd, but that leads to some horrible confusion between the product and the command. I guess I'm not seeing the disconnect. If a reader cannot parse httpd as shorthand the Apache HTTP Server program, then we have more serious issues in helping them become a web server administrator. The problem is that httpd is used as shorthand for the Apache HTTP Server *and* as a reference to a specific binary/process/command, and we assume that people can work out the difference, because, y'know, Bill knows the difference, and Roy does, so obviously, all the rest of us should too. If the command were, say, apache2, then just using Apache HTTP Server (httpd) for the first mention, and httpd thereafter would be fine. Heck, even if we absolutely always used apachectl, and never referred to the binary directly, we might be able to get something that worked, although there'd be a lot more rewriting of docs required. But when it's not always clear to people who've been working on the project for years whether a given instance of httpd refers to a single binary or a set of binaries, and config files, and sometimes other bits and pieces, how on earth do we expect users to be able to grok what we're talking about? And as for clueless lawyers, unless we've given one commit access, they're not the only ones using HTTPd either - cf http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/install.html Noirin
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
On 3/16/2010 2:24 PM, Noirin Shirley wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 3/16/2010 12:37 PM, Noirin Shirley wrote: In some places, we use httpd, but that leads to some horrible confusion between the product and the command. I guess I'm not seeing the disconnect. If a reader cannot parse httpd as shorthand the Apache HTTP Server program, then we have more serious issues in helping them become a web server administrator. The problem is that httpd is used as shorthand for the Apache HTTP Server *and* as a reference to a specific binary/process/command, and we assume that people can work out the difference, because, y'know, Bill knows the difference, and Roy does, so obviously, all the rest of us should too. Actually; the command is usually apachectl ;-)
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 3/16/2010 2:24 PM, Noirin Shirley wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 3/16/2010 12:37 PM, Noirin Shirley wrote: In some places, we use httpd, but that leads to some horrible confusion between the product and the command. I guess I'm not seeing the disconnect. If a reader cannot parse httpd as shorthand the Apache HTTP Server program, then we have more serious issues in helping them become a web server administrator. The problem is that httpd is used as shorthand for the Apache HTTP Server *and* as a reference to a specific binary/process/command, and we assume that people can work out the difference, because, y'know, Bill knows the difference, and Roy does, so obviously, all the rest of us should too. Actually; the command is usually apachectl ;-) Unfortunately usually isn't the same as always, and that only adds to the confusion. I know that you know what you're talking about when you say httpd, in any context. But a user coming to our docs sees the same word used as a process name, and as a product name, and then as a command, and then they're told they shouldn't use that command, ... Not everyone can be VP of the project. The docs are meant to make it easier for the people who *aren't* VP to use our software. Noirin
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
On 03/16/2010 06:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: I thought the only people who ever capitalize HTTP in httpd are clueless lawyers. apache_1.2.4.tar.gz/ABOUT_APACHE The Apache HTTP Server Project http://www.apache.org/ June 1997 Seems the HTTPD is used for a long time Regards -- ^TM
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
On 3/16/2010 2:58 PM, Mladen Turk wrote: On 03/16/2010 06:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: I thought the only people who ever capitalize HTTP in httpd are clueless lawyers. apache_1.2.4.tar.gz/ABOUT_APACHE The Apache HTTP Server Project http://www.apache.org/ June 1997 Seems the HTTPD is used for a long time I'm sorry, I'm looking at your snip and I don't see a captial D.
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
On 03/16/2010 09:37 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: I thought the only people who ever capitalize HTTP in httpd are clueless lawyers. apache_1.2.4.tar.gz/ABOUT_APACHE The Apache HTTP Server Project http://www.apache.org/ June 1997 Seems the HTTPD is used for a long time I'm sorry, I'm looking at your snip and I don't see a captial D. Choose one. D or d :) IMHO Apache HTTPD is no better then Apache httpd. It should be Apache Httpd thought. Regards -- ^TM
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
On Mar 16, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Noirin Shirley wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 3/16/2010 12:37 PM, Noirin Shirley wrote: In some places, we use httpd, but that leads to some horrible confusion between the product and the command. I guess I'm not seeing the disconnect. If a reader cannot parse httpd as shorthand the Apache HTTP Server program, then we have more serious issues in helping them become a web server administrator. The problem is that httpd is used as shorthand for the Apache HTTP Server *and* as a reference to a specific binary/process/command, and we assume that people can work out the difference, because, y'know, Bill knows the difference, and Roy does, so obviously, all the rest of us should too. No, they can work out the difference (assuming they ever need to) by looking at the context. If the command were, say, apache2, then just using Apache HTTP Server (httpd) for the first mention, and httpd thereafter would be fine. Heck, even if we absolutely always used apachectl, and never referred to the binary directly, we might be able to get something that worked, although there'd be a lot more rewriting of docs required. But when it's not always clear to people who've been working on the project for years whether a given instance of httpd refers to a single binary or a set of binaries, and config files, and sometimes other bits and pieces, how on earth do we expect users to be able to grok what we're talking about? And as for clueless lawyers, unless we've given one commit access, they're not the only ones using HTTPd either - cf http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/install.html Yes, both Joshua Slive and Ken Coar would (very rarely) capitalize the HTTP for no apparent reason, as would various denizens of other projects (NCSA HTTPd post-1.5, kHTTPd, OmniHTTPd, etc.). That doesn't make it our product name. A patch to make everything consistently wrong is not an improvement over being inconsistently wrong in our docs. Roy
