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

InfraRED/Veres Tibor (infrared@a-b.hu)
Sun, 20 Jun 1999 14:39:10 +0200 (CEST)

On 20-Jun-99 Philip Blundell wrote:
>>You wouldn't need them if the server is in the kernel. At the very least,
>>there wouldn't be any need for wrapping the kernel calls with user-space
>>functions - again, conservation of space and time.
>
> If the handful of bytes it takes to wrap a syscall is a serious concern for
> you then Linux is probably not the right platform for your application.

My opinion is that starting to put everything in the kernel is a very-very bad
idea. This thing startted with knfsd, now comes khttpd, kftpd, kraserver...
etc..
The more stuff will be "embedded" into the server, the more unstable will it
be.
I think, the best solution for this problem would be to implement a clear
interface which would allow loadable modules to provide such services. Than
independent developers could make such a loadable httpd, ftpd or even in-kernel
web-browser :-))
but anyone using this facility has to know that he is risking his system's
stability for some speed improvement.

--
InfraRED of aurora-borealis/Veres Tibor
E-Mail: infrared@a-b.hu


-
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/