You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2010/03/06 21:52:21 UTC
Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd
Hey there Docs team,
One of the recent board/members level dialogs was about the persistence
and recognition of the name "Apache" as a web server program.
We are unlikely to ever completely fix this in the public perception, but
the program is "httpd", the "Apache HTTP Server". If you could all help
to identify "Apache" abuse throughout the documentation and web pages, and
transform those to "httpd" for shorthand, that would be a huge help.
Perhaps choosing the program's name to be the name of the foundation was
a mistake, but the least we can do is to help adjust for the reality of
the current structure and framework of our foundation. It is named "Apache",
The Apache Software Foundation, so wherever we can disambiguate the web
server software's name from our umbrella, it will be appreciated by all
of our sibling projects and fellow committers!
Many thanks,
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd
Posted by Frank Gingras <fr...@gmail.com>.
On 06/03/2010 3:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Hey there Docs team,
>
> One of the recent board/members level dialogs was about the persistence
> and recognition of the name "Apache" as a web server program.
>
> We are unlikely to ever completely fix this in the public perception, but
> the program is "httpd", the "Apache HTTP Server". If you could all help
> to identify "Apache" abuse throughout the documentation and web pages, and
> transform those to "httpd" for shorthand, that would be a huge help.
>
> Perhaps choosing the program's name to be the name of the foundation was
> a mistake, but the least we can do is to help adjust for the reality of
> the current structure and framework of our foundation. It is named "Apache",
> The Apache Software Foundation, so wherever we can disambiguate the web
> server software's name from our umbrella, it will be appreciated by all
> of our sibling projects and fellow committers!
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Bill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
>
>
Bill,
+1
I'll update our wiki, at the very least.
Frank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd
Posted by Young Kill <my...@yahoo.com>.
Dear bill
My name is Adam and i would like to contribute to apache project, translating document into my language, if i can.
i referred to the page on how to contribute and learned i need to subscribe the mailing list and i did it.
but i am still confused what to do in order for myself to translate to project.
would you refer me to the start-point or link ?
i know you are extremely busy.
thanks so much for your time.
regards,
Adam
________________________________
From: William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
To: docs@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Sun, 7 March, 2010 6:52:21 AM
Subject: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd
Hey there Docs team,
One of the recent board/members level dialogs was about the persistence
and recognition of the name "Apache" as a web server program.
We are unlikely to ever completely fix this in the public perception, but
the program is "httpd", the "Apache HTTP Server". If you could all help
to identify "Apache" abuse throughout the documentation and web pages, and
transform those to "httpd" for shorthand, that would be a huge help.
Perhaps choosing the program's name to be the name of the foundation was
a mistake, but the least we can do is to help adjust for the reality of
the current structure and framework of our foundation. It is named "Apache",
The Apache Software Foundation, so wherever we can disambiguate the web
server software's name from our umbrella, it will be appreciated by all
of our sibling projects and fellow committers!
Many thanks,
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Noirin Shirley <no...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
> If we're going to do a massive sed, my preference would be for Apache
> HTTPD and HTTPD, because the capitalisation avoids the confusion
> between httpd-the-server and httpd-the-command, and it's fewer words
> :-)
>
> Going that way also means you don't have to worry about including the
> short form in parentheses after the first reference - it's easy to
> intuit that "HTTPD" and "Apache HTTPD" mean the same thing, whereas
> it's less obvious what the connection is between "httpd" and "Apache
> HTTP Server".
>
> If we're going with Apache HTTP Server and httpd, I think it's
> important to *avoid* markup when we mean the webserver, and to
> (consistently, if we can!) *use* markup when we mean the command.
>
>
> Hmm. I didn't think we had a choice in what name we used. I figured that was
> a question of trademark.
>From my understanding, there's no trademark-based reason that Apache
HTTP Server is better than Apache HTTPD. We've used both, fairly
interchangeably, to refer to the same thing for a long time.
That doesn't mean my way is the right way, just that we should worry
about docs and code, and let lawyers worry about the other stuff :-)
Larry, can you confirm?
N
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
>
> If we're going to do a massive sed, my preference would be for Apache
> HTTPD and HTTPD, because the capitalisation avoids the confusion
> between httpd-the-server and httpd-the-command, and it's fewer words
> :-)
>
> Going that way also means you don't have to worry about including the
> short form in parentheses after the first reference - it's easy to
> intuit that "HTTPD" and "Apache HTTPD" mean the same thing, whereas
> it's less obvious what the connection is between "httpd" and "Apache
> HTTP Server".
>
> If we're going with Apache HTTP Server and httpd, I think it's
> important to *avoid* markup when we mean the webserver, and to
> (consistently, if we can!) *use* markup when we mean the command.
Hmm. I didn't think we had a choice in what name we used. I figured
that was a question of trademark.
Anyone want to express an opinion on this before I go back and change
what I've done? Is there a "right" name?
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 3/16/2010 8:00 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> Are there other options here? Is this something that needs to go to the
> PMC, or can we arrive at consensus here?
Actually; 1) this vote was already conducted, and 2) it needs to happen on the
dev@ list, e.g. the "central hub" of the project. We welcome all the energy
that docs@ has to offer, but renaming the project isn't in its jurisdiction :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Noirin Shirley <no...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
>> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/13/2010 10:41 AM, Noirin Shirley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If we're going to do a massive sed, my preference would be for Apache
>>>> HTTPD and HTTPD, because the capitalisation avoids the confusion
>>>> between httpd-the-server and httpd-the-command, and it's fewer words
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Please note, Apache httpd [always lower case] is the httpd (short name)
>>> application program from the Apache Software Foundation. Apache HTTP
>>> Server
>>> is the title of the program. The letters HTTPD in upper case are
>>> nonsense,
>>> because HTTP is capitalized as a specification and acronym, while httpd
>>> is lower case following the convention that the program is installed
>>> with.
>>>
>>> Introducing "Apache HTTPD" [omiting Server], or "HTTPD" or "Apache
>>> Server"
>>> all serve to further confuse this landscape. And this is certainly not
>>> the work of the Apache HTTPD Server Project ;-)
>>
>> +1, strong preference for "Apache HTTP Server" in the vast majority of
>> non-heres-the-name-of-an-executable references.
>
>
> Oh, sure, you say that just as soon as I change the last occurrence of
> "Apache HTTP Server (httpd)" to "Apache HTTPD". ;-)
>
> I honestly can't say that I feel strongly about this one way or another, but
> I would like to know what the consensus is so that we can be consistent. It
> doesn't flow well to call it "Apache HTTP Server" every time we mention it
> in the main body of the docs. So we need to agree on a full name variation,
> and an abbreviated variation:
>
> Full:
> [ ] - Apache HTTP Server
> [ ] - Apache HTTPD
>
> Abbreviated:
> [ ] - httpd
> [ ] - HTTPD
> [ ] - Apache httpd
My main concern is that it be Really Very Obvious that the abbreviated
version is just that. "Shortening something by omitting parts of it"
makes an abbreviation - not "picking something that is shorter". My
secondary concern is that it be obvious that the name of the project
and the name of the command are different.
So if "Apache HTTP Server" is the full name, I'd be happy with any of
the following abbreviations: "Apache", "HTTP Server", "Apache Server",
"Apache HTTP", "AHS", "Apache HS", etc, etc. (Obviously, some of them
I like better than others - that's ok, looking good wasn't listed in
my concerns above)
My preference would be to come to a consensus here, and then bring it
to the PMC for approval. I'm open to arguments on that one though.
Noirin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Noirin Shirley <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>> Summary:
>>
>> It appears that the majority is in favor of 'Apache HTTP Server' when
>> referred to in full, but there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus of how
>> this should be abbreviated, so that we don't have to say the full name every
>> time.
>
> Looking at the example sentences below, it seems to me that "Apache
> HTTP Server" and "the server" could be the solution to all of this.
Yes; this will be the readable solution in many instances. (I think
Dan suggested something like this -- maybe "the web server" -- in a
different thread.)
>
>> In deciding what file to serve for a given request, the server's
>> default behavior is to take the URL-Path for the request (the part
>> of the URL following the hostname and port) and add it to the end
>> of the <directive module="core">DocumentRoot</directive> specified
>> in your configuration files.
>>
>>
>> Apache HTTP Server is also capable of <a href="vhosts/">Virtual
>> Hosting</a>, where the server receives requests for more than one
>> host.
>>
>> Apache HTTP Server offers several different ways to accomplish this.
>>
>
> The last is mildly clunky, but I don't think there's a completely
> clunk-free option on the table anyway.
>
> N
--
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Andrew Ford <A....@ford-mason.co.uk>.
It is the acronymn that they use (I googled for "define: AWS" rather
than "AWS" and didn't see and had forgotten about Amazon Web Services).
Andrew
Noirin Shirley wrote:
>
> Quick observation from my phone: I've previously considered AWS, but
> never suggested it because I thought it was the acronym Amazon used
> for some of their stuff.
> If I'm wrong on that, I think it's a fine choice.
> N
>
>> On 18 Mar 2010 09:37, "Andrew Ford" <A.Ford@ford-mason.co.uk
>> <ma...@ford-mason.co.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Ford wrote:
>> >
>> > William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 3/17/2010 4:43 PM, Andrew Ford wrote:
>> >> ...
>>
>>
>> >> What is the short name of the "Apache Web Server"? "Server"?
>> That would be
>> >> a problem. Certa...
>>
>> 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. Then one could say "It is not
>> 'Apache', it is 'Apache Web Server' or 'AWS' for short", and people
>> might start using the new abbreviation. As I said before "HTTPD" is
>> ugly - it also sounds to my Unix hacker's ears like an anonymous HTTP
>> daemon and looks like a random string of five consonants. "AWS" is
>> easier to spell out, and doesn't seem to be in use for any other
>> technical project or body (having googled for "define: AWS"). It has
>> a certain similarity to "IIS", which might not be a bad thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Ford South Wing Compton House, Compton Green,
>> Redmarley, Gl...
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
--
Andrew Ford
South Wing Compton House
Compton Green, Redmarley
Gloucester, GL19 3JB, UK
Telephone: +44 1531 829900
Mobile: +44 7785 258278
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Noirin Shirley <no...@apache.org>.
Quick observation from my phone: I've previously considered AWS, but never
suggested it because I thought it was the acronym Amazon used for some of
their stuff.
If I'm wrong on that, I think it's a fine choice.
N
On 18 Mar 2010 09:37, "Andrew Ford" <A....@ford-mason.co.uk> wrote:
Andrew Ford wrote:
>
> William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> On 3/17/2010 4:43 PM, Andrew Ford wrote:
>> ...
>
> >> What is the short name of the "Apache Web Server"? "Server"? That
> would be
> >> a problem. Certa...
>
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. Then one could say "It is not 'Apache', it is
'Apache Web Server' or 'AWS' for short", and people might start using the
new abbreviation. As I said before "HTTPD" is ugly - it also sounds to my
Unix hacker's ears like an anonymous HTTP daemon and looks like a random
string of five consonants. "AWS" is easier to spell out, and doesn't seem
to be in use for any other technical project or body (having googled for
"define: AWS"). It has a certain similarity to "IIS", which might not be a
bad thing.
Andrew
--
Andrew Ford South Wing Compton House, Compton Green,
Redmarley, Gl...
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:15 AM, Noirin Shirley wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
> wrote:
>> Summary:
>>
>> It appears that the majority is in favor of 'Apache HTTP Server' when
>> referred to in full, but there doesn't seem to be much of a
>> consensus of how
>> this should be abbreviated, so that we don't have to say the full
>> name every
>> time.
>
> Looking at the example sentences below, it seems to me that "Apache
> HTTP Server" and "the server" could be the solution to all of this.
>
>> In deciding what file to serve for a given request, the server's
>> default behavior is to take the URL-Path for the request (the part
>> of the URL following the hostname and port) and add it to the end
>> of the <directive module="core">DocumentRoot</directive> specified
>> in your configuration files.
>>
>>
>> Apache HTTP Server is also capable of <a href="vhosts/">Virtual
>> Hosting</a>, where the server receives requests for more than one
>> host.
>>
>> Apache HTTP Server offers several different ways to accomplish this.
>>
>
> The last is mildly clunky, but I don't think there's a completely
> clunk-free option on the table anyway.
There are many, many places in the docs where simple rewording would
improve not only the clunk factor, but make the entire thing a lot
easier to understand. This is, of course, an ongoing task. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Noirin Shirley <no...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> Summary:
>
> It appears that the majority is in favor of 'Apache HTTP Server' when
> referred to in full, but there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus of how
> this should be abbreviated, so that we don't have to say the full name every
> time.
Looking at the example sentences below, it seems to me that "Apache
HTTP Server" and "the server" could be the solution to all of this.
> In deciding what file to serve for a given request, the server's
> default behavior is to take the URL-Path for the request (the part
> of the URL following the hostname and port) and add it to the end
> of the <directive module="core">DocumentRoot</directive> specified
> in your configuration files.
>
>
> Apache HTTP Server is also capable of <a href="vhosts/">Virtual
> Hosting</a>, where the server receives requests for more than one
> host.
>
> Apache HTTP Server offers several different ways to accomplish this.
>
The last is mildly clunky, but I don't think there's a completely
clunk-free option on the table anyway.
N
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@apache.org>.
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: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Andrew Ford <A....@ford-mason.co.uk>.
Andrew Ford wrote:
> William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 3/17/2010 4:43 PM, Andrew Ford wrote:
>>
>>> In my opinion a better, clearer name would just be Apache Web Server.
>>>
>>
>> That isn't the name of 2.0/2.2 but I will be happy to add this to STATUS
>> as a recommendation for the next iteration :) The issue in the past
>> is that
>> the Tomcat (and now Geronimo) folk can legitimately object to this
>> statement.
>>
>
>> What is the short name of the "Apache Web Server"? "Server"? That
>> would be
>> a problem. Certainly not "Web", and the reason for this entire
>> exercise is
>> that the Apache folk decided to let hundreds of other pieces of software
>> call themselves "Apache", so that is out, too.
>>
> 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.
>
>
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. Then one could say "It is not 'Apache', it
is 'Apache Web Server' or 'AWS' for short", and people might start using
the new abbreviation. As I said before "HTTPD" is ugly - it also sounds
to my Unix hacker's ears like an anonymous HTTP daemon and looks like a
random string of five consonants. "AWS" is easier to spell out, and
doesn't seem to be in use for any other technical project or body
(having googled for "define: AWS"). It has a certain similarity to
"IIS", which might not be a bad thing.
Andrew
--
Andrew Ford
South Wing Compton House, Compton Green,
Redmarley, Gloucestershire, GL19 3JB, UK
Tel: +44 1531 829900
Mobile: +44 7785 258278
Email: A.Ford@ford-mason.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Andrew Ford <A....@ford-mason.co.uk>.
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 3/17/2010 4:43 PM, Andrew Ford wrote:
>
>> In my opinion a better, clearer name would just be Apache Web Server.
>>
>
> That isn't the name of 2.0/2.2 but I will be happy to add this to STATUS
> as a recommendation for the next iteration :) The issue in the past is that
> the Tomcat (and now Geronimo) folk can legitimately object to this statement.
>
>
"Apache" might not be the official name, but it is more or less what the
world calls it - even on the httpd-users mailing lists most people talk
about the version of "apache" that they are running. It is also the "A"
in LAMP and people talk about "Apache running over half the world's web
sites". I think that trying to find a "technically correct name" runs
the risk of confusing people and in fact damaging the wider brand.
I don't see that it is really a problem that the Apache web server has a
special place in the hierarchy. It was the first project and has such
widespread recognition (a bit like British stamps being the only stamps
that do not include the country name on them). Most people aren't going
to qualify other Apache project names, such as Apache Tomcat, in normal
usage, and people live with all sorts of ambiguities.
> What is the short name of the "Apache Web Server"? "Server"? That would be
> a problem. Certainly not "Web", and the reason for this entire exercise is
> that the Apache folk decided to let hundreds of other pieces of software
> call themselves "Apache", so that is out, too.
>
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.
Andrew
--
Andrew Ford
South Wing Compton House, Compton Green,
Redmarley, Gloucestershire, GL19 3JB, UK
Tel: +44 1531 829900
Mobile: +44 7785 258278
Email: A.Ford@ford-mason.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 3/17/2010 4:43 PM, Andrew Ford wrote:
> In my opinion a better, clearer name would just be Apache Web Server.
That isn't the name of 2.0/2.2 but I will be happy to add this to STATUS
as a recommendation for the next iteration :) The issue in the past is that
the Tomcat (and now Geronimo) folk can legitimately object to this statement.
What is the short name of the "Apache Web Server"? "Server"? That would be
a problem. Certainly not "Web", and the reason for this entire exercise is
that the Apache folk decided to let hundreds of other pieces of software
call themselves "Apache", so that is out, too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Andrew Ford <A....@ford-mason.co.uk>.
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 3/17/2010 3:02 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>> I didn't think that the patch would incur the wrath of Roy.
>>
>
> I did - which is why my initial response was, uhm, direct. I'm sorry
> if it also came off as opinionated or confrontational, I was just trying
> to avert the previously-fought battle from reappearing.
>
> I think it's worth noting that our English language expert can easily
> derive "HTTPD" or "HTTPd" forms, so I don't know that Roy's blanket
> criticism of the users/legal/whatever communities is really warranted.
> It just points out that you need to think of any proposed name in terms
> of its plural, possessive and other non-normative forms, and railing
> against flaws of the English language is about a 1000 year old sport :)
>
> Nothing Roy pointed out affects the "next version of httpd" (other than
> speaking for potential bastardizations of "The HTTP Protocol", of which
> he is still an active editor).
>
> It's not too early to start talking (in trunk/STATUS?) of names for the
> next httpd, e.g. 3.0. If we want to call it "Dee" or whatever, let the
> naming begin :)
>
>
>
I know I am coming in to this discussion very late on, but I find the
name HTTPD (whatever capitalization) ugly and not very user friendly.
It is cumbersome to say the individual letters in English (by contrast
"IIS" rolls off the tongue much more easily). It seems that in print
everyone refers to the web server as just Apache, or maybe Apache [web]
server. I doubt that most people outside the project, without a Unix
background, would necessarily understand what HTTPD meant (and debian
and Ubuntu name their package "apache2" anyway).
In my opinion a better, clearer name would just be Apache Web Server.
Andrew
--
Andrew Ford
South Wing Compton House, Compton Green,
Redmarley, Gloucestershire, GL19 3JB, UK
Tel: +44 1531 829900
Mobile: +44 7785 258278
Email: A.Ford@ford-mason.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 3/17/2010 3:02 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> I didn't think that the patch would incur the wrath of Roy.
I did - which is why my initial response was, uhm, direct. I'm sorry
if it also came off as opinionated or confrontational, I was just trying
to avert the previously-fought battle from reappearing.
I think it's worth noting that our English language expert can easily
derive "HTTPD" or "HTTPd" forms, so I don't know that Roy's blanket
criticism of the users/legal/whatever communities is really warranted.
It just points out that you need to think of any proposed name in terms
of its plural, possessive and other non-normative forms, and railing
against flaws of the English language is about a 1000 year old sport :)
Nothing Roy pointed out affects the "next version of httpd" (other than
speaking for potential bastardizations of "The HTTP Protocol", of which
he is still an active editor).
It's not too early to start talking (in trunk/STATUS?) of names for the
next httpd, e.g. 3.0. If we want to call it "Dee" or whatever, let the
naming begin :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Mar 17, 2010, at 3:45 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 3/17/2010 6:37 AM, Rich Bowen wrote
>> Summary:
>>
>> It appears that the majority is in favor of 'Apache HTTP Server' when
>> referred to in full, but there doesn't seem to be much of a
>> consensus of
>> how this should be abbreviated, so that we don't have to say the full
>> name every time.
>>
>> Example sentences:
>>
>> In deciding what file to serve for a given request, httpd's
>> default behavior is to take the URL-Path for the request (the part
>> of the URL following the hostname and port) and add it to the end
>> of the <directive module="core">DocumentRoot</directive> specified
>> in your configuration files.
>
> I don't find this ambiguous. Let's choose a worse one
...
Ok. Well, as long as we can refer to the product as "Apache HTTP
Server", I think that the other cases in which we desire an
abbreviated form are individually pretty easy. It just requires
someone to read all the docs and get the sense of the paragraph in
question. Not difficult, just tedious. I didn't think that the patch
would incur the wrath of Roy.
--Rich
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 3/17/2010 6:37 AM, Rich Bowen wrote
> Summary:
>
> It appears that the majority is in favor of 'Apache HTTP Server' when
> referred to in full, but there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus of
> how this should be abbreviated, so that we don't have to say the full
> name every time.
>
> Example sentences:
>
> In deciding what file to serve for a given request, httpd's
> default behavior is to take the URL-Path for the request (the part
> of the URL following the hostname and port) and add it to the end
> of the <directive module="core">DocumentRoot</directive> specified
> in your configuration files.
I don't find this ambiguous. Let's choose a worse one
To determine the default settings compiled in when httpd was initially built,
there is an option <code>httpd -v</code> to display such parameters.
(Forget for the moment that both readings are valid and assume the first
only applies to the entire application.) I'm still not seeing a horrible
issue, but in the really ambiguious case, we can reword to;
To determine the default settings compiled in when Apache HTTP Server was
initially built, there is an option <code>httpd -v</code> to display such
parameters.
> Apache is also capable of <a href="vhosts/">Virtual
> Hosting</a>, where the server receives requests for more than one
> host.
>
> httpd offers several different ways to accomplish this.
These are easy, "Apache httpd {verb} [...]." or "Apache HTTP Server {verb} [...]."
This is how I usually work around fixed-case issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
Summary:
It appears that the majority is in favor of 'Apache HTTP Server' when
referred to in full, but there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus
of how this should be abbreviated, so that we don't have to say the
full name every time.
Example sentences:
In deciding what file to serve for a given request, httpd's
default behavior is to take the URL-Path for the request (the part
of the URL following the hostname and port) and add it to the end
of the <directive module="core">DocumentRoot</directive> specified
in your configuration files.
Apache is also capable of <a href="vhosts/">Virtual
Hosting</a>, where the server receives requests for more than one
host.
httpd offers several different ways to accomplish this.
Note in the third example that we have the additional complicating
factor of wishing to capitalize the first word in the sentence, and
being unsure of how to handle that.
Perhaps I'm making too much of this, but the mandate from Sally is to
stop using 'Apache' when we mean 'Apache HTTP Server', to do our
(small and ineffective) part in dispelling the public perception that
"Apache" == "Web Server".
I'm inclined to go with 'Apache httpd' in the above three examples,
even though it's a little cumbersome. It seems the best of all the
options, although it doesn't directly satisfy Noirin's criterion that
the abbreviation be composed of part(s) of the long form.
Thoughts?
--Rich
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Lucien GENTIS <lu...@lorraine.iufm.fr>.
Le 16 mars 2010 à 15:09, Noirin Shirley a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Lucien GENTIS
> <lu...@lorraine.iufm.fr> wrote:
>>
>> My vote :
>>
>> Full:
>> [ ] - Apache HTTP Server
>>
>> Abbreviated:
>> [ ] - httpd
>>
>>
>> Please no HTTPD, I think it's really confusing.
>> On the other hand, "Apache httpd" is the same as "httpd" since httpd is a part of Apache. It's like "Irish Guinness" (but, this is another topic ;-))
>>
>
> I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Apache httpd is not
> the same as httpd.
>
> Apache httpd is a synonym for the Apache HTTP Server, presumably. (It
> might not be, in certain circumstances, but let's make the argument
> simpler.)
All I was trying to say is that if we talk about httpd in the doc, we don't need to prepend it with "Apache" ; we know we don't talk about CERN httpd, or W3C httpd.
>
> httpd is a command, that invokes the Apache HTTP Server. It's *NOT* a
> synonym for the project, it's not a synonym for Apache httpd, it's
> something you type at a command line.
Oh Oh ! Perhaps I missed something (all in all I'm just a translator), but as far as I'm concerned, httpd actually is the server itself (not the project) and the main subject of the documentation whom we talk, even if we also talk about apachectl, htpasswd, etc. ; I don't know what you mean when you say it invokes the Apache HTTP Server.
>
> I have no idea how Guinness is relevant.
>
> Noirin
Because, as when we think about httpd, we also think about Apache, when we think about Guinness, we also think about Ireland (at least for me)
Happy St Patrick
Lucien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Noirin Shirley <no...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Lucien GENTIS
<lu...@lorraine.iufm.fr> wrote:
>
> My vote :
>
> Full:
> [ ] - Apache HTTP Server
>
> Abbreviated:
> [ ] - httpd
>
>
> Please no HTTPD, I think it's really confusing.
> On the other hand, "Apache httpd" is the same as "httpd" since httpd is a part of Apache. It's like "Irish Guinness" (but, this is another topic ;-))
>
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Apache httpd is not
the same as httpd.
Apache httpd is a synonym for the Apache HTTP Server, presumably. (It
might not be, in certain circumstances, but let's make the argument
simpler.)
httpd is a command, that invokes the Apache HTTP Server. It's *NOT* a
synonym for the project, it's not a synonym for Apache httpd, it's
something you type at a command line.
I have no idea how Guinness is relevant.
Noirin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Lucien GENTIS <lu...@lorraine.iufm.fr>.
Le 16 mars 2010 à 14:00, Rich Bowen a écrit :
>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
>> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2010 10:41 AM, Noirin Shirley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If we're going to do a massive sed, my preference would be for Apache
>>>> HTTPD and HTTPD, because the capitalisation avoids the confusion
>>>> between httpd-the-server and httpd-the-command, and it's fewer words
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Please note, Apache httpd [always lower case] is the httpd (short name)
>>> application program from the Apache Software Foundation. Apache HTTP Server
>>> is the title of the program. The letters HTTPD in upper case are nonsense,
>>> because HTTP is capitalized as a specification and acronym, while httpd
>>> is lower case following the convention that the program is installed with.
>>>
>>> Introducing "Apache HTTPD" [omiting Server], or "HTTPD" or "Apache Server"
>>> all serve to further confuse this landscape. And this is certainly not
>>> the work of the Apache HTTPD Server Project ;-)
>>
>> +1, strong preference for "Apache HTTP Server" in the vast majority of
>> non-heres-the-name-of-an-executable references.
>
>
> Oh, sure, you say that just as soon as I change the last occurrence of "Apache HTTP Server (httpd)" to "Apache HTTPD". ;-)
>
> I honestly can't say that I feel strongly about this one way or another, but I would like to know what the consensus is so that we can be consistent. It doesn't flow well to call it "Apache HTTP Server" every time we mention it in the main body of the docs. So we need to agree on a full name variation, and an abbreviated variation:
>
> Full:
> [ ] - Apache HTTP Server
> [ ] - Apache HTTPD
>
> Abbreviated:
> [ ] - httpd
> [ ] - HTTPD
> [ ] - Apache httpd
>
> Are there other options here? Is this something that needs to go to the PMC, or can we arrive at consensus here?
>
> --Rich
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
>
My vote :
Full:
[ ] - Apache HTTP Server
Abbreviated:
[ ] - httpd
Please no HTTPD, I think it's really confusing.
On the other hand, "Apache httpd" is the same as "httpd" since httpd is a part of Apache. It's like "Irish Guinness" (but, this is another topic ;-))
Lucien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc
Posted by Dan Poirier <po...@pobox.com>.
On 2010-03-16 at 09:00, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> I honestly can't say that I feel strongly about this one way or
> another, but I would like to know what the consensus is so that we can
> be consistent. It doesn't flow well to call it "Apache HTTP Server"
> every time we mention it in the main body of the docs. So we need to
> agree on a full name variation, and an abbreviated variation:
>
> Full:
> [x ] - Apache HTTP Server
> [ ] - Apache HTTPD
>
> Abbreviated:
> [ ] - httpd
> [ ] - HTTPD
> [ ] - Apache httpd
>
> Are there other options here? Is this something that needs to go to
> the PMC, or can we arrive at consensus here?
Apache HTTP Server is fine for the first time we reference it.
After that, why not just say "the server"? In context, that shouldn't
be ambiguous, and it's likely to flow better than the alternatives.
Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 3/16/2010 8:11 AM, Mark Watts wrote:
>
> I think you're going to be fighting a similar battle to the "GNU/Linux"
> vs "Linux" vs "linux" folks.
:)
> Joe Public says "Apache" when he means "httpd".
> Similarly, he doesn't say "Apache Tomcat", merely "Tomcat".
>
> Granted, the documentation needs to be consistent with whatever is
> chosen here but I suspect this will pass un-noticed to most of our
> user-base.
I think we all accept this. The issue is more of normalization and
canonicalization. About the only time we can influence this is if some
publisher comes to us for permission to use ASF trademarks (e.g. the
Feather) - many companies/orgs fire back a usage document spelling out
how it is to be presented, etc. That would be a good place to document
the 'official convention', whatever this turns out to be :)
The only thing we agree on, for certain, is that the program should not
be shorthanded as 'Apache' anymore. But changing it here won't correct
the boundless third party documentation and commentary on the web, and
the Foundation just has to accept this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Mark Watts <m....@eris.qinetiq.com>.
> Oh, sure, you say that just as soon as I change the last occurrence of
> "Apache HTTP Server (httpd)" to "Apache HTTPD". ;-)
>
> I honestly can't say that I feel strongly about this one way or
> another, but I would like to know what the consensus is so that we can
> be consistent. It doesn't flow well to call it "Apache HTTP Server"
> every time we mention it in the main body of the docs. So we need to
> agree on a full name variation, and an abbreviated variation:
>
> Full:
> [ ] - Apache HTTP Server
> [ ] - Apache HTTPD
>
> Abbreviated:
> [ ] - httpd
> [ ] - HTTPD
> [ ] - Apache httpd
>
> Are there other options here? Is this something that needs to go to
> the PMC, or can we arrive at consensus here?
>
> --Rich
I think you're going to be fighting a similar battle to the "GNU/Linux"
vs "Linux" vs "linux" folks.
Joe Public says "Apache" when he means "httpd".
Similarly, he doesn't say "Apache Tomcat", merely "Tomcat".
Granted, the documentation needs to be consistent with whatever is
chosen here but I suspect this will pass un-noticed to most of our
user-base.
Mark.
--
Mark Watts BSc RHCE MBCS
Senior Systems Engineer, Managed Services Manpower
www.QinetiQ.com
QinetiQ - Delivering customer-focused solutions
GPG Key: http://www.linux-corner.info/mwatts.gpg
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Mar 16, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> On 3/13/2010 10:41 AM, Noirin Shirley wrote:
>>>
>>> If we're going to do a massive sed, my preference would be for
>>> Apache
>>> HTTPD and HTTPD, because the capitalisation avoids the confusion
>>> between httpd-the-server and httpd-the-command, and it's fewer words
>>> :-)
>>
>> Please note, Apache httpd [always lower case] is the httpd (short
>> name)
>> application program from the Apache Software Foundation. Apache
>> HTTP Server
>> is the title of the program. The letters HTTPD in upper case are
>> nonsense,
>> because HTTP is capitalized as a specification and acronym, while
>> httpd
>> is lower case following the convention that the program is
>> installed with.
>>
>> Introducing "Apache HTTPD" [omiting Server], or "HTTPD" or "Apache
>> Server"
>> all serve to further confuse this landscape. And this is certainly
>> not
>> the work of the Apache HTTPD Server Project ;-)
>
> +1, strong preference for "Apache HTTP Server" in the vast majority of
> non-heres-the-name-of-an-executable references.
Oh, sure, you say that just as soon as I change the last occurrence of
"Apache HTTP Server (httpd)" to "Apache HTTPD". ;-)
I honestly can't say that I feel strongly about this one way or
another, but I would like to know what the consensus is so that we can
be consistent. It doesn't flow well to call it "Apache HTTP Server"
every time we mention it in the main body of the docs. So we need to
agree on a full name variation, and an abbreviated variation:
Full:
[ ] - Apache HTTP Server
[ ] - Apache HTTPD
Abbreviated:
[ ] - httpd
[ ] - HTTPD
[ ] - Apache httpd
Are there other options here? Is this something that needs to go to
the PMC, or can we arrive at consensus here?
--Rich
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 3/13/2010 10:41 AM, Noirin Shirley wrote:
>>
>> If we're going to do a massive sed, my preference would be for Apache
>> HTTPD and HTTPD, because the capitalisation avoids the confusion
>> between httpd-the-server and httpd-the-command, and it's fewer words
>> :-)
>
> Please note, Apache httpd [always lower case] is the httpd (short name)
> application program from the Apache Software Foundation. Apache HTTP Server
> is the title of the program. The letters HTTPD in upper case are nonsense,
> because HTTP is capitalized as a specification and acronym, while httpd
> is lower case following the convention that the program is installed with.
>
> Introducing "Apache HTTPD" [omiting Server], or "HTTPD" or "Apache Server"
> all serve to further confuse this landscape. And this is certainly not
> the work of the Apache HTTPD Server Project ;-)
+1, strong preference for "Apache HTTP Server" in the vast majority of
non-heres-the-name-of-an-executable references.
--
Eric Covener
covener@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Mar 14, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Lucien GENTIS wrote:
> I think it depends on the context : if we talk about the server in
> its whole (build, configuration, source tree, etc.), it's "Apache
> HTTP server" ; if we talk about the behaviour of the server against
> requests, it's "httpd".
I think that if you read through some of the documentation, you'll
find places where it's not immediately clear which of these to use.
The docs tend to personify quite a bit: "Apache allows you to ..." and
the like. Also, paragraphs that contain "Apache HTTP server" four or
five times are very awkward. Granted, this probably means that the
paragraph needs to be rewritten, and I've been doing a little of that.
But doing a major overhaul of half the docs just to clarify a name is
a *lot* of work. Not that that's a reason not to do it, but it's going
to take a while.
So, all that to say, I agree with your assessment, and at the same
time, wish that I had let the discussion run its course before I made
so many changes. I guess they're just as easy to undo.
--Rich
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Lucien GENTIS <lu...@lorraine.iufm.fr>.
Noirin Shirley a écrit :
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:23 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2010 10:41 AM, Noirin Shirley wrote:
>>
>>> If we're going to do a massive sed, my preference would be for Apache
>>> HTTPD and HTTPD, because the capitalisation avoids the confusion
>>> between httpd-the-server and httpd-the-command, and it's fewer words
>>> :-)
>>>
>> Please note, Apache httpd [always lower case] is the httpd (short name)
>> application program from the Apache Software Foundation. Apache HTTP Server
>> is the title of the program.
>>
>
> If we're trying to give our users a better understanding of what our
> project is in the context of the foundation, this is not the way to do
> it. I've been hanging around here for 5+ yrs, and I can't parse what
> you've written, I've no idea what you're suggesting each term refers
> to--and "application program" never appears in our docs, as far as I
> can see, so that doesn't help.
>
>
>> The letters HTTPD in upper case are nonsense,
>> because HTTP is capitalized as a specification and acronym, while httpd
>> is lower case following the convention that the program is installed with.
>>
>
> I don't see why that makes nonsense out of HTTPD in upper case.
> "httpd" in lower case is, as you say, a convention (I don't know what
> you mean by "the convention that the program is installed with?). That
> doesn't mean HTTPD is nonsense - or HTTPd, or Httpd (let's not go the
> LaTeX route though :-)).
>
> If we want to get users on to a new name for the thing they've always
> called "Apache", I think it's important that we make it as easy as
> possible to know what the project is called, and that we disambiguate
> between the name of the project and the name of the command.
>
> If we go with Apache HTTP Server (httpd), we're failing on both
> counts. First of all, users suddenly have to deal with two names for
> the project (is it called HTTP Server, or httpd?), and secondly, one
> of those names is the same as the command (so is that really a name,
> or are they trying to remind me what the command is? Whatever, I'll
> just call it Apache and everyone will know what I mean.)
>
>
>> Introducing "Apache HTTPD" [omiting Server], or "HTTPD" or "Apache Server"
>> all serve to further confuse this landscape. And this is certainly not
>> the work of the Apache HTTPD Server Project ;-)
>>
>
> I disagree. I think introducing a single term is the only way to clear
> up this already-confused landscape. If the Diktat is that the project
> is now called Apache HTTP Server, that's fine--but we need to stop
> calling it httpd in that case, and make sure that any docs references
> to httpd refer to the command, not the project.
>
> N
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
>
>
Just my opinion :
Apache makes reference to several projects, and Apache web server
(although the first listed) is only one of them. So, "Apache" is to
vague to make reference to the web server, and "httpd" refers precisely
to the Apache HTTP daemon
So, it's difficult to determine exactly what term must be used in
what circumstance.
I think it depends on the context : if we talk about the server in its
whole (build, configuration, source tree, etc.), it's "Apache HTTP
server" ; if we talk about the behaviour of the server against requests,
it's "httpd".
I also think that "HTTPD" can be confusing ; it's either "HTTP"
protocol, either 'httpd" daemon.
Happy week-end to all
Lucien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Noirin Shirley <no...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:23 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 3/13/2010 10:41 AM, Noirin Shirley wrote:
>>
>> If we're going to do a massive sed, my preference would be for Apache
>> HTTPD and HTTPD, because the capitalisation avoids the confusion
>> between httpd-the-server and httpd-the-command, and it's fewer words
>> :-)
>
> Please note, Apache httpd [always lower case] is the httpd (short name)
> application program from the Apache Software Foundation. Apache HTTP Server
> is the title of the program.
If we're trying to give our users a better understanding of what our
project is in the context of the foundation, this is not the way to do
it. I've been hanging around here for 5+ yrs, and I can't parse what
you've written, I've no idea what you're suggesting each term refers
to--and "application program" never appears in our docs, as far as I
can see, so that doesn't help.
> The letters HTTPD in upper case are nonsense,
> because HTTP is capitalized as a specification and acronym, while httpd
> is lower case following the convention that the program is installed with.
I don't see why that makes nonsense out of HTTPD in upper case.
"httpd" in lower case is, as you say, a convention (I don't know what
you mean by "the convention that the program is installed with?). That
doesn't mean HTTPD is nonsense - or HTTPd, or Httpd (let's not go the
LaTeX route though :-)).
If we want to get users on to a new name for the thing they've always
called "Apache", I think it's important that we make it as easy as
possible to know what the project is called, and that we disambiguate
between the name of the project and the name of the command.
If we go with Apache HTTP Server (httpd), we're failing on both
counts. First of all, users suddenly have to deal with two names for
the project (is it called HTTP Server, or httpd?), and secondly, one
of those names is the same as the command (so is that really a name,
or are they trying to remind me what the command is? Whatever, I'll
just call it Apache and everyone will know what I mean.)
> Introducing "Apache HTTPD" [omiting Server], or "HTTPD" or "Apache Server"
> all serve to further confuse this landscape. And this is certainly not
> the work of the Apache HTTPD Server Project ;-)
I disagree. I think introducing a single term is the only way to clear
up this already-confused landscape. If the Diktat is that the project
is now called Apache HTTP Server, that's fine--but we need to stop
calling it httpd in that case, and make sure that any docs references
to httpd refer to the command, not the project.
N
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 3/13/2010 10:41 AM, Noirin Shirley wrote:
>
> If we're going to do a massive sed, my preference would be for Apache
> HTTPD and HTTPD, because the capitalisation avoids the confusion
> between httpd-the-server and httpd-the-command, and it's fewer words
> :-)
Please note, Apache httpd [always lower case] is the httpd (short name)
application program from the Apache Software Foundation. Apache HTTP Server
is the title of the program. The letters HTTPD in upper case are nonsense,
because HTTP is capitalized as a specification and acronym, while httpd
is lower case following the convention that the program is installed with.
Introducing "Apache HTTPD" [omiting Server], or "HTTPD" or "Apache Server"
all serve to further confuse this landscape. And this is certainly not
the work of the Apache HTTPD Server Project ;-)
> Going that way also means you don't have to worry about including the
> short form in parentheses after the first reference - it's easy to
> intuit that "HTTPD" and "Apache HTTPD" mean the same thing, whereas
> it's less obvious what the connection is between "httpd" and "Apache
> HTTP Server".
True perhaps, but not worth the confusion.
> If we're going with Apache HTTP Server and httpd, I think it's
> important to *avoid* markup when we mean the webserver, and to
> (consistently, if we can!) *use* markup when we mean the command.
Yes, we will need to be very explicit and use <code>httpd</code> whenever
we mean to instruct the user to invoke the httpd command, e.g.
<code>httpd -t</code>
> Noirin, who's glad to have a use for her book-learnin' ;-)
Thanks Noirin!
Bill [who's glad to have book-learn't contributors at docs!]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Noirin Shirley <no...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
> What I ahve been trying to do is to use 'Apache HTTP Server (httpd)' at the
> beginning of a document, and 'httpd' thereafter. Perhaps Noirin can tell us
> what we should be doing here.
>
This is a reasonable approach.
If we're going to do a massive sed, my preference would be for Apache
HTTPD and HTTPD, because the capitalisation avoids the confusion
between httpd-the-server and httpd-the-command, and it's fewer words
:-)
Going that way also means you don't have to worry about including the
short form in parentheses after the first reference - it's easy to
intuit that "HTTPD" and "Apache HTTPD" mean the same thing, whereas
it's less obvious what the connection is between "httpd" and "Apache
HTTP Server".
If we're going with Apache HTTP Server and httpd, I think it's
important to *avoid* markup when we mean the webserver, and to
(consistently, if we can!) *use* markup when we mean the command.
Noirin, who's glad to have a use for her book-learnin' ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Mar 12, 2010, at 8:35 AM, Adiel Cristo wrote:
> I am a student of Computer Science UFBA - Brazil, and share the
> documentation list for a long time because I am developing a project
> that involves the Apache HTTP Server Documentation.
>
> I don't know if the discussion of these changes in nomenclature of
> the server is open to everyone or just to you who work directly with
> the documentation, but I make a suggestion.
>
> It can be defined at the beginning of documentation, in a relevant
> local, that "Apache HTTP Server" refers to the server as a whole,
> including all its processes (httpd, apachectl, etc.) and "httpd"
> refers to the process explicitly, or could be used only "httpd" for
> two, with a different markup to distinguish when referring to the
> server and when it refers to the process.
>
> I think that use only the term "Apache 2" would lead to the belief
> that "Apache 1" or simply "Apache" refers to the first version of
> the server.
That's correct. We're not going to use the term 'Apache 2'. It needs
to be either 'Apache HTTP Server' or 'httpd' or 'Apache httpd.' What
remains to determine is in what contexts we use each, and whether it
matters, and whether any particular markup should be used in each case.
What I'm suggesting is that we use 'Apache HTTP Server (httpd)' at the
beginning of a document, and 'httpd' thereafter. Perhaps repeating
this at the beginning of a major section.
--Rich
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Adiel Cristo <ad...@adielcristo.com>.
Hi,
I am a student of Computer Science UFBA - Brazil, and share the
documentation list for a long time because I am developing a project
that involves the Apache HTTP Server Documentation.
I don't know if the discussion of these changes in nomenclature of the
server is open to everyone or just to you who work directly with the
documentation, but I make a suggestion.
It can be defined at the beginning of documentation, in a relevant
local, that "Apache HTTP Server" refers to the server as a whole,
including all its processes (httpd, apachectl, etc.) and "httpd" refers
to the process explicitly, or could be used only "httpd" for two, with a
different markup to distinguish when referring to the server and when it
refers to the process.
I think that use only the term "Apache 2" would lead to the belief that
"Apache 1" or simply "Apache" refers to the first version of the server.
Anyway, this is just a suggestion, so excuse any inconvenience.
Regards,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Adiel Cristo*
/"The measure of my steps is the will of my Father..."/
Web Developer / Web Designer / Information Architect
adiel@adielcristo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Em 12/3/2010 09:35, Rich Bowen escreveu:
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:29 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>
>>>>> We are unlikely to ever completely fix this in the public
>>>>> perception, but
>>>>> the program is "httpd", the "Apache HTTP Server". If you could
>>>>> all help
>>>>> to identify "Apache" abuse throughout the documentation and web
>>>>> pages, and
>>>>> transform those to "httpd" for shorthand, that would be a huge help.
>>>
>>> I am still confused over when "Apache HTTP Server" and when "httpd".
>>> Is the former just a baby step to the latter?
>>>
>>> I wanted to do a mass sed of s/Apache 2/Apache HTTP Server 2/g, but if
>>> "Apache HTTP Server" is only the marginally less confusing term I
>>> didn't want the unnecessary churn.
>>>
>>> ("Apache 2" just happens to get a lot of hits and is a pretty safe
>>> expression)
>>
>> What I ahve been trying to do is to use 'Apache HTTP Server (httpd)'
>> at the beginning of a document, and 'httpd' thereafter. Perhaps
>> Noirin can tell us what we should be doing here.
>
> Also, should we be using particular markup, such as
> <code>httpd</code>, to refer to the server?
>
> --Rich
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
>
>
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Mar 12, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:29 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
>>>> We are unlikely to ever completely fix this in the public
>>>> perception, but
>>>> the program is "httpd", the "Apache HTTP Server". If you could
>>>> all help
>>>> to identify "Apache" abuse throughout the documentation and web
>>>> pages, and
>>>> transform those to "httpd" for shorthand, that would be a huge
>>>> help.
>>
>> I am still confused over when "Apache HTTP Server" and when "httpd".
>> Is the former just a baby step to the latter?
>>
>> I wanted to do a mass sed of s/Apache 2/Apache HTTP Server 2/g, but
>> if
>> "Apache HTTP Server" is only the marginally less confusing term I
>> didn't want the unnecessary churn.
>>
>> ("Apache 2" just happens to get a lot of hits and is a pretty safe
>> expression)
>
> What I ahve been trying to do is to use 'Apache HTTP Server (httpd)'
> at the beginning of a document, and 'httpd' thereafter. Perhaps
> Noirin can tell us what we should be doing here.
Also, should we be using particular markup, such as <code>httpd</
code>, to refer to the server?
--Rich
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:29 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>> We are unlikely to ever completely fix this in the public
>>> perception, but
>>> the program is "httpd", the "Apache HTTP Server". If you could
>>> all help
>>> to identify "Apache" abuse throughout the documentation and web
>>> pages, and
>>> transform those to "httpd" for shorthand, that would be a huge help.
>
> I am still confused over when "Apache HTTP Server" and when "httpd".
> Is the former just a baby step to the latter?
>
> I wanted to do a mass sed of s/Apache 2/Apache HTTP Server 2/g, but if
> "Apache HTTP Server" is only the marginally less confusing term I
> didn't want the unnecessary churn.
>
> ("Apache 2" just happens to get a lot of hits and is a pretty safe
> expression)
What I ahve been trying to do is to use 'Apache HTTP Server (httpd)'
at the beginning of a document, and 'httpd' thereafter. Perhaps Noirin
can tell us what we should be doing here.
--Rich
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
>> We are unlikely to ever completely fix this in the public perception, but
>> the program is "httpd", the "Apache HTTP Server". If you could all help
>> to identify "Apache" abuse throughout the documentation and web pages, and
>> transform those to "httpd" for shorthand, that would be a huge help.
I am still confused over when "Apache HTTP Server" and when "httpd".
Is the former just a baby step to the latter?
I wanted to do a mass sed of s/Apache 2/Apache HTTP Server 2/g, but if
"Apache HTTP Server" is only the marginally less confusing term I
didn't want the unnecessary churn.
("Apache 2" just happens to get a lot of hits and is a pretty safe expression)
--
Eric Covener
covener@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Suexec doc (Was Re: Fixing confusion of Apache vs httpd)
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
In the process of doing this, I looked at the suexec doc and Holy Cow,
it's dated. Can someone who knows something about suexec and
mod_suexec take a look at it and make some recommendations? Thanks.
On Mar 6, 2010, at 3:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Hey there Docs team,
>
> One of the recent board/members level dialogs was about the
> persistence
> and recognition of the name "Apache" as a web server program.
>
> We are unlikely to ever completely fix this in the public
> perception, but
> the program is "httpd", the "Apache HTTP Server". If you could all
> help
> to identify "Apache" abuse throughout the documentation and web
> pages, and
> transform those to "httpd" for shorthand, that would be a huge help.
>
> Perhaps choosing the program's name to be the name of the foundation
> was
> a mistake, but the least we can do is to help adjust for the reality
> of
> the current structure and framework of our foundation. It is named
> "Apache",
> The Apache Software Foundation, so wherever we can disambiguate the
> web
> server software's name from our umbrella, it will be appreciated by
> all
> of our sibling projects and fellow committers!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org