Threat of running a web server?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Noyb
  • Start date Start date
Dazz said:
Lets go back to what I originally said.

"IIS actually offers a range of services, such as http, ftp and nntp,
so it does in effect describe what it offers - services."
Click to expand...

hey, if we're going to get into our way-back machines let's look at
what *i* originally said

"and like Apache, the product name does not necessarily describe what
the product contains... "

*contains* ... not "offers"... i could care less about the finer points
or the whys and wherefores of IIS' name... it was offered as an
example of microsoft supposedly using "server" and "service"
interchangably, which is wrong... not to mention that whole proposition
was to draw attention away from the fact that the claimant had
committed the very same sin with "server" and "daemon"...

[snip]
So, clearly, I don't think you actually read my post. You half read
it, and then jumped to a conclusion, which happens to be mistaken.
Click to expand...

that's rich coming from the guy who didn't bother to familiarize
himself with the the contextual nuances of the debate he jumped in on
the end of...

oh, i didn't allow myself to be lead astray by the introduction of an
alternative context for 'service', boo hoo...

i'm pretty sure i mentioned 'context' enough in the previous two
replies to make it clear that context was an issue...
 
The simple fact, that you fail to understand, is that the FTP service
runs on FTP servers, so that people can connect using FTP (file
transfer protocol).

And the same goes for http and nntp.
Click to expand...

So, are you in agreement with Colonel Flagg that a daemon is
the same as a server as per his "...if you're running a "service",
a "server" or a "daemon", you're providing "something" to be
given out to someone."?

To my way of thinking that is only one use of a daemon, not
a definition of what a daemon is. Do you (or he) think that the
Kernel Swap Daemon is a server?
 
So, are you in agreement with Colonel Flagg that a daemon is
the same as a server as per his "...if you're running a "service",
a "server" or a "daemon", you're providing "something" to be
given out to someone."?
Click to expand...

No, not exactly.

See below.
To my way of thinking that is only one use of a daemon, not
a definition of what a daemon is. Do you (or he) think that the
Kernel Swap Daemon is a server?
Click to expand...

I agree with you. A term "daemon" can be used for many things.

Dazz
 
hey, if we're going to get into our way-back machines let's look at
what *i* originally said

"and like Apache, the product name does not necessarily describe what
the product contains... "

*contains* ... not "offers"... i could care less about the finer points
or the whys and wherefores of IIS' name... it was offered as an
example of microsoft supposedly using "server" and "service"
interchangably, which is wrong... not to mention that whole proposition
was to draw attention away from the fact that the claimant had
committed the very same sin with "server" and "daemon"...
Click to expand...

I didn't necessarily agree with the Colonel on that point either.

I did disagree with your point about Apache and IIS and your comment
regarding "the product name does not necessarily describe what the
product contains...".
[snip]
So, clearly, I don't think you actually read my post. You half read
it, and then jumped to a conclusion, which happens to be mistaken.
Click to expand...

that's rich coming from the guy who didn't bother to familiarize
himself with the the contextual nuances of the debate he jumped in on
the end of...
Click to expand...

See above and you point that I disagreed with.
oh, i didn't allow myself to be lead astray by the introduction of an
alternative context for 'service', boo hoo...
Click to expand...

*yawn*

Crybaby. :-)
i'm pretty sure i mentioned 'context' enough in the previous two
replies to make it clear that context was an issue...
Click to expand...

Excellent. Keep harping on it, and maybe you'll believe it someday.

Dazz
 
Dazz said:
I didn't necessarily agree with the Colonel on that point either.
Click to expand...

then we're making progress...
I did disagree with your point about Apache and IIS and your comment
regarding "the product name does not necessarily describe what the
product contains...".
Click to expand...

and you countered by saying that it offers services.. except this isn't
really a counter argument, it's a statement of something completely
different... yes, IIS offers services, but that's not the same as
containing them... it offers services in the sense that it offers to do
things for you, not in the sense that it offers to hand out things it
contains...

you may have disagreed with what you thought i said, but clearly IIS
does not contain the work it offers to do for people as that is not a
thing that can be contained...
 
Back
Top