Re: Threat of running a web server?
From: kurt wismer (kurtw_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:42:52 -0500
Colonel Flagg wrote:
> In article <9F_Ob.7310$cQ6.email@example.com>,
> firstname.lastname@example.org says...
>>a server is an entity that services requests from clients, and that may
>> or may not be implemented in the form of a service/daemon (though
>>the autonomous nature of services and daemons make servers using that
>>implementation preferable)... that said, there are many services and
>>daemons that are not necessarily part of a server implementation...
> let me help you get rid of the "corporate speak" and let's look at the
> real definitions.... which are EXACTLY what I was trying to say
> previously... perhaps my explanation confused you... here, let's look at
> the accepted definitions:
aww, how nice, that's very generous of you...
but please, let me help you get rid of that misconception that i speak
'corporate speak'... the reason the phrases i use sound foreign to you
is that the university i got my computer science degree from focused as
heavily on theory as it did on practical issues... my definition,
abstract though it may seem, is simply more general than the pablum
you'll find in the jargon file...
> server n. A kind of daemon that performs a service for the
interesting... so therefore there are other kinds of daemons that
aren't servers... so therefore daemons aren't the same thing as servers...
> No entry for "Services" in the Jargon Dictionary
> No entry for "Services" in the Jargon File
> No entry for "Services" relating to computer sciences at dictionary.com
> Would "services" perhaps be yet another phrase coined by Redmond to re-
> define their view of yet another age-old computer term that was
> previously accepted but not "corporatese" enough? See sig for details.
a windows service is the windows nt equivalent of the unix daemon...
did the folks in redmond coin the term? sure, why shouldn't they, they
designed windows nt, they have every right to name the architectural
components anything they like... why use a special new term instead of
'daemon'? because windows isn't unix and unix concepts don't
regardless - while both daemons and servers sit around waiting to do
something, the term 'server' specifies a role and the terms 'deamon'
and 'service' both specify an implementation category...
-- "hungry people don't stay hungry for long they get hope from fire and smoke as the weak grow strong hungry people don't stay hungry for long they get hope from fire and smoke as they reach for the dawn"