The proposals (not only yours) are becoming too complex and not affordable
for a webmaster, who are the target of the khttp. If you do not think so
(just for benchmarks and hype) do not make things too complex. Just
implement a very stupid and _simple_ web server.
In a real world (i.e. a real Linux web server), webmaster are running
_many_ virtual servers (more than twenty) and just small changes in any
configuration file (i.e., changes in Apache conf and zone names quotes)
it's a big pain to them/us and I bet most of them (us) are still using old
srm and access apache configuration files...
You are not only going to force webmasters to change configuration files
and directories, but also forcing them to teach web designers what a
static page/image and what's not. Believe me, it's very hard to this kind
of people to understand this kind of "technical" concepts. Furthermore,
any medium size website is full of rubish, they are just adding/deleting
files when a small change is needed (yes, HTML/HTTP entropy sucks).
Users want to answer just yes and not to installation programs, they do
not want to change everything to get benefits that are not very clear at
the moment. Indeed, it is cheaper, less time consuming and more
reliable just to move the disks to a more powerful machine and not to
waste time changing configurations and content files for every virtual
server they run (and firewalls).
Be careful, if you force users (who are running hundred of thousands of
Linux powered web sites) to change everything to gain some CPU cicles,
they will just move to another OS. Or the new feature will be never used,
and so becomes in another creep in the ware.
-- Ricardo Galli
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/