Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:19:53 -0600 | From | "Dwayne C . Litzenberger" <> | Subject | Re: Bloat? (khttpd) |
| |
On Thu, Dec 23, 1999 at 02:57:53PM +0100, Marek Habersack wrote: > * Dwayne C . Litzenberger said: > > > > Performance. The apache/khttpd combo beats the shit out of NT in most > > > benchmarks. > > > > Maybe so, but why don't we put Quake into the kernel, too? You would get > > great performance, but something like that simply belongs in user space. I > > don't think Linux deserves the benchmarks it gets if it cheats to get > > them. We shouldn't let politics allow us to employ bad design (If a > > registry ala Windows was a performance issue, would we use it? No, > > because it makes a mess of everything). > > > > An HTTP server is something that should be in a patch, not the main kernel > > tree. (Heck, software suspend and the PC-speaker driver should go in > > before khttpd does.) > Come on, I don't understand the noise. You don't like it, you don't use it. > After all compiling it in is OPTIONAL, right? > > marek
But what happens when the source code itself is so full of #if KQUAKE lines that it *really* slows down development. I say "keep it simple, stupid". The kernel should do mostly what user-space cannot (don't we always complain how windows sucks because the GUI is kernel-based?).
I agree that some things are good in the kernel, but that doesn't mean they should go in the main tree.
-- "I already have all the latest software." -- Laura Winslow, "Family Matters"
Dwayne C. Litzenberger - dlitz@cheerful.com
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Advertising Policy: http://www.redrival.com/dlitz/spamoff.html GnuPG Public Key: http://www.redrival.com/dlitz/gpgkey.asc Fingerprint: 0535 F7CF FF5F 8547 E5A5 695E 4456 FB6C BC39 A4B0 [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |