On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 23:47, Mike MacCana wrote: > 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. > Right, but those interface are applications or menu items and should be tagged accordingly. > 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> > In this instance, the menu item is HTTP and should be tagged as a guimenuitem. You are referring to the name of the menu item, not the actual service. > > 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
