Christopher Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/