The new 'Linux Foundation'

[Paul Lussier]

Christopher Schmidt <crschmidt at crschmidt.net> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:46:54AM -0500, Drew Van Zandt wrote:
>> I find the redhat httpd (and thus by extension the w3c naming)
>
> Er, W3C? What relation does the W3C bear to Apache, or even webservers?

Errr, the webserver must spew-forth http, which is defined by the w3c?
(Just a guess here :)

>> Now, which httpd is that in the process list, again?
>
> Do you find bind ('named') irritating in the same way?

Oh, don't get me started on *that* can of worms!  Oops, too late! ;)

Yeah, let's call the software BIND, but the process 'named', and
squirrel all the config files away under /etc/bind, but call the
actual config file named.conf.  For added clarity we set the username
under which we'll run the daemon to bind but the process to named with
a user argumemnt of bind...

Grrr.  Just call everything named or bind, I don't care which, but c'mon!

-- 
Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853  E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE

A: Yes.                                                               
> Q: Are you sure?                                                    
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.           
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?