André Warnier did speak thusly:
You might not be aware that in non-US/UK versions of Windows, this will also be different, such as "Dokumente und Einstellunge", "Documentos y Parametros", and so on. Also "Program Files" becomes variously "Programme", "Archivos de Programa", "Fichiers de Programmes", and "Application Data" becomes "Datos de Programa", "Anwendungsdaten" and so on. I do not know where your classroom work takes places, nor if there is any concern about distributing these settings or instructions to a multi-lingual audience that might be using other that US/UK versions of Windows. But if there is, you might want to take this into account, or it might well confuse some.
The localization issues should be handled by using the correct tokens in the installation script that represent the proper directories in the installation hierarchy. All of the current Windows installation tools (either Microsoft written or third party) have tools to properly handle the installation if these are used. The issue comes more so in documenting things in print than in installing them. I can only assume that the Apache developers have done the right thing so it gets installed where it should and there is no issue with this.
While some people may not like Microsoft's conventional file layout, it is well supported in the tools used to package distributions. Not to mention that most installation scripts I have seen give you the option of placing it in the default location or in a location you choose if you don't like the default.
The fact the MS uses a conventional MS way to do things, does not necessarily mean that everyone else has to blindly follow it.
No, it doesn't, but when the expectation of the majority of users is that certain things will be found in certain places, why should you surprise them? The principal of "least surprise" is a good one to follow.
I use Windows on my own machines both at home and for work, I EXPECT programs to be installed in the Program Files directory and not in the root directory or any non-standard location. I also work on a variety of other servers on other platforms and I generally leave things in their default locations to make support easier. The only times I don't do this is if I have a damn good reason to make changes.
Particularly open-source packages and particularly for such packages as Apache, where the audience almost by default is the world at large.
A moot point if the installation script in the distribution was properly set up. Again, I expect the developers publiching the Apache Windows distribution were savvy enough to do so.
There is a creeping tendency to do so however.
Let me ask you this... if you are running a distribution like Ubuntu or RHEL, are you going to follow their file hierarchy or are you going to decide it is all wrong and do it your own way?
Each OS has a standard for where things live, Microsoft is no different from any other OS vendor in that they too have a standard. Whether you like how they do it or not is all personal preference.
I am waiting impatiently for the Windows Apache version's "cute paperclip popup assistant" to show up.
Apache isn't a Microsoft product, this statement is just absurd and I think a bit insulting to the Apache developers.
Dragon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Venimus, Saltavimus, Bibimus (et naribus canium capti sumus) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] " from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
