On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Toni Mueller wrote: > > A few things: why is it called "tcpwatch" when it only watches HTTP > > requests? A better name would be "httpwatch". > > it's named that way by upstream. I want to keep confusion to a minimum
Well, personally, I'd rather not have such a thing in Debian with that name. And the fact that upstream called it that way doesn't speak highly of the tool, either IMHO. We have *real* tcp stream/flow watchers and recorders in Debian already. Also, ethereal/wireshark can postprocess and analyze http traffic, if you require a GUI. If this new tool can do better for http traffic (which I don't doubt it could, but it is not certain so far), it should at least be properly named... And if it cannot do better than the tools we already have in the archive, why package it? -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
