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

Marek Habersack (grendel@vip.net.pl)
Sat, 19 Jun 1999 20:44:12 +0200


--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Matthew Wilcox said:
> 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)
> > >=20
> > > 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.
>=20
> And you assert this could not be done in user space at sufficient speed?
I don't know the internals of their OS they use in those devices, but I
suppose that anything running on a privileged level in a time-critical
environment will be faster than user-space thingy of the same sort. And the
less complex an embedded environment is, the better - including such a
service in kernel makes it simpler to implement and maintain since the
design of embedded environments is, per definition, task-oriented.

marek

--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia

iQCVAwUBN2vk/J1EuNB7BOoNAQEnrQP/eY/4A5SrZwPb2AfeXaMZEM//kRPyh/pl
+7t/EV7sQxihCH8FNEJQ79fcZDFzmRj+uSyCYpH067wolqproJKlvqHK2feFuuxM
tw0f37GYJkgjZTa/+r0V31k8bDRhd4MVfOZYAMWMa0hHpTXnjPjxDLSIMLVLfuST
GlCSEgADlDw=
=eyF0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+--

-
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/