Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about

Marek Habersack (grendel@vip.net.pl)
Sat, 19 Jun 1999 19:25:02 +0200


--MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Matthew Wilcox said:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 07:13:40PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > khttpd is also attractive for embedded systems 8)
>=20
> uhh.. why do you want an embedded system to serve static webpages?
> dynamic webpages, I can understand, so it can report its status.
If you have ever seen 3Com's NetBuilder SuperStack II, or the 3Com's
Switches WEB-based management interface, then you would certainly see a
reason for static webpages in an embedded environment.

regards,
marek
=20

--MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia

iQCVAwUBN2vSbp1EuNB7BOoNAQFi1QQAp+YVfPus7/FlYZRwSNx/SnZqfIk4X1oK
G3d/zvoIocS4+B2LPhma0vaSADyrjD0uxVrkoFhDEscVaEH114ZIPeuxwppu+WC/
vmcfWfWfq4CWRFcFeml7bPPhfTVbeYbc9yrNZGLExQJqPVFaXIRqZdkx2m10bjhz
vWXTa8wYKuQ=
=F6mk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8--

-
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/