You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com> on 2010/03/16 18:24:36 UTC
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
On Mar 16, 2010, at 5:48 AM, rbowen@apache.org wrote:
> Author: rbowen
> Date: Tue Mar 16 12:48:31 2010
> New Revision: 923712
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=923712&view=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 <code>httpd</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/
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Mar 16, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 5:48 AM, rbowen@apache.org wrote:
>
>> Author: rbowen
>> Date: Tue Mar 16 12:48:31 2010
>> New Revision: 923712
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=923712&view=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 <code>httpd</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/
Posted by Noirin Shirley <no...@apache.org>.
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/
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
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/
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
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
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
Posted by Noirin Shirley <no...@apache.org>.
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/
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
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/
Posted by Noirin Shirley <no...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 5:48 AM, rbowen@apache.org wrote:
>
>> Author: rbowen
>> Date: Tue Mar 16 12:48:31 2010
>> New Revision: 923712
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=923712&view=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 <code>httpd</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/
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:28:46AM +0000, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Noirin Shirley <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Dan Poirier <po...@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/
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Noirin Shirley <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Dan Poirier <po...@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/
Posted by Noirin Shirley <no...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Dan Poirier <po...@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/
Posted by Dan Poirier <po...@pobox.com>.
On 2010-03-16 at 16:57, Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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.
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 :-)
Dan
Re: svn commit: r923712 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual: ./ mod/
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
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/
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
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/
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
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