Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about
Matthew Wilcox (Matthew.Wilcox@genedata.com)
Sat, 19 Jun 1999 19:36:08 +0200
On Sat, Jun 19, 1999 at 07:25:02PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> * Matthew Wilcox said:
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 07:13:40PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > > khttpd is also attractive for embedded systems 8)
> >
> > 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.
And you assert this could not be done in user space at sufficient speed?
--
Matthew Wilcox <willy@bofh.ai>
"Windows and MacOS are products, contrived by engineers in the service of
specific companies. Unix, by contrast, is not so much a product as it is a
painstakingly compiled oral history of the hacker subculture." - N Stephenson
-
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/