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

Bjorn Wesen (bjorn@sparta.lu.se)
Sat, 19 Jun 1999 19:44:26 +0200 (MET DST)

On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > khttpd is also attractive for embedded systems 8)
> > > uhh.. why do you want an embedded system to serve static webpages?
> > If you have ever seen 3Com's NetBuilder SuperStack II, or the 3Com's
[or the hundreds of other networking products on the market with built in
webservers]
> And you assert this could not be done in user space at sufficient speed?

The original poster was probably refering to smaller memory footprint
instead of speed. In an embedded system where flash memory is expensive, a
large webserver is overkill. But there are smaller servers for that, like
boa, which is about 40 kb object code. You need the appropriate functions
from libc as well of course, but you probably need those anyway.

I've used both an in-kernel http server and boa for an embedded system and
boa was much cleaner.

/Bjorn

-
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/