On Tue, 09 Jun 2009, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > > WWW should maybe be replaced by HTTP > > During review, Justin had this to say about the second question in the > template: > > > Hang on - "http" isn't in /etc/services (port 80 is "www"). Will > > ufw in fact accept it? > > In any case, the service in this line needs to be consistent with the > second question, I think. It's just a case of choosing which one - > services(5) has this to say: > > > services is a plain ASCII file providing a mapping between > > human- friendly textual names for internet services, and their > > underlying assigned port numbers and protocol types. > > Given that in that file www is the service and http the protocol, and > we're talking about services in this template, I think it should be www. > I'm open to constructive objections, of course :) >
ufw will accept either (as should anything that uses getservbyname()), so I don't think it matters. What matters most to me is usability. WWW was chosen initially because it seemed more people would recognize it. One could argue HTTP is equally as recognizable, so I don't have an opinion on WWW vs HTTP generally. > > Considering this, how about the following: > > - __Choices: Cups, DNS, Imap (Secure), Pop3 (Secure), SSH, Samba, Smtp, > > WWW, WWW (Secure) > > + __Choices: CUPS, DNS, IMAP (secure), POP3 (secure), SSH, CIFS (Samba), > > SMTP, HTTP, HTTP (secure) > > Aside from the above, I agree. > It was mentioned that perhaps getting rid of 'Secure' would be more accurate and easier on translators. I think this is a valid point and does not hurt usability. How about: - __Choices: Cups, DNS, Imap (Secure), Pop3 (Secure), SSH, Samba, Smtp, WWW, WWW (Secure) + __Choices: CUPS, DNS, IMAPs, POP3s, SSH, CIFS (Samba), SMTP, HTTP, HTTPS I realize that HTTPS doesn't go with IMAPs and POP3s, but HTTPs just looked wrong. Jamie -- Jamie Strandboge | http://www.canonical.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
