On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Tammy Fox wrote: > When I was in RH Docs, we had the command versus application debate many > times over. ;-) Basically, my reasoning for ultimately deciding to use > command tags for services, daemons, and the like was because I think of > an application as something that has an interface other than the command > line -- GUI or at least a TUI. service have an interface other than the command line. In each of the tutorials I'm writing, if there's an appropriate Red Hat GUI config tool for the service, I provide instructions on installing, configuring, enabling and starting the service graphically (as well as the standard command line method provided for all services). Hence you end up with something like: <para> Start the <command>httpd</command> service and set it to start by default. <guimenu>Main Menu</guimenu> => <guimenuitem>System Settings</guimenuitem> => <guimenuitem>Services</guimenuitem>, select the <command>httpd</command> service and click Start to start the service (use Restart if it is already running). </para> > IMO it is more fitting to use the > same style for commands, services, daemons, etc. To be honest I don't know why Red Hat even bothers using the word 'daemon'. It has too many meanings in Unix (some people use it descrive a Sys V service, others the binaries run by that service, others an application that has been backgrounded by any method). I find it best to avoid using the term 'daemon' completely. The only place where it still matters is TCP Wrappers, which is fast becoming irrelevant, due its limited application support and filtering capabilities. Mike
