Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:27:31 +0400 From: Denis Peplin <den@FreeBSD.org> To: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: TCP Wrappers section (handbook/security): services is not daemons Message-ID: <416E8CD3.9070700@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20041014101233.399d4b40@localhost> References: <416E4DFD.3040203@FreeBSD.org> <20041014102459.GD799@zaphod.nitro.dk> <20041014092213.22d6914d@localhost> <416E8491.8080500@FreeBSD.org> <20041014101233.399d4b40@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello! Tom Rhodes wrote: > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:52:17 +0400 > Denis Peplin <den@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > >>Hello! >> >>Yes, i see now that using word "daemon" for services is >>tradition here :) >> >>It will not be a big problem, if we will add short >>description for this "term" (explain tradition) in >>beginning of the section. > > > We can do that, but I do see one slight problem: Should you > write a patch or should I? I'm kind of in the middle of a > move and a new job so my FreeBSD time is pretty short. :) > I can write it, but i'm not native English speaker, so you preferred :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?416E8CD3.9070700>