Re: khttpd beaten by boa

[Ingo Oeser]

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       >>>>>>>>>>>>