Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:25:45 +0100 | From | Ingo Oeser <> | Subject | Re: khttpd beaten by boa |
| |
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 02:36:41PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > This just goes on to show that khttpd is unnecessary kernel bloat and can be > > "just as well" handled by a userspace application, minus some rather very > > special cases which do not justify its inclusion into the main kernel. > Regarding wether either khttpd or TuX should be in the kernel: I take it > that it is your oppinion that neither should be in the kernel. I disagree > with that and I think having a http-server-engine (or even a more generic > file-serving engine) in the kernel can make sense for high-end uses. The > average desktop-user doesn't profit from it, sure. But that also holds for > things like hardware-raid or even SCSI. We still want those in though.
This thingie is nice for embedded use, where you need a webserver for some stuff, but don't wan't to include one, because you need it only to represent some machine values of a process computer[1].
But we need a more generic one, which has the functionality of a read only entry of /proc.
That would be _very_ useful.
Regards
Ingo Oeser
[1] Don't know the right translation for "Prozessrechner", Sorry ;-( -- 10.+11.03.2001 - 3. Chemnitzer LinuxTag <http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/linux/tag> <<<<<<<<<<<< come and join the fun >>>>>>>>>>>> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |