Appropriate tags for service names and syslog facilties?

Mike MacCana mikem at
Wed Feb 18 04:47:54 UTC 2004

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:

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).

> 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.


More information about the docs mailing list