Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 19 Jun 1999 19:36:08 +0200 | From | Matthew Wilcox <> | Subject | Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about |
| |
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/
| |