Re: Bloat? (khttpd)

Marek Habersack (grendel@vip.net.pl)
Thu, 23 Dec 1999 21:40:49 +0100


--XOIedfhf+7KOe/yw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Stephen Frost said:

> > > > Performance. The apache/khttpd combo beats the shit out of NT in m=
ost
> > > > benchmarks.
> > >=20
> > > No, it does not. What gives you that idea? The current khttpd has not
> > > much advantage compared to a good user space server.
> > Do you have any numbers handy? I would be interested in seeing them.
>=20
> I believe the duty to produce numbers goes to the person trying to get
> the code included. The idea being that you have to prove the solution is=
useful
> w/ code and numbers before it will be included in the kernel. At least, =
that's
> the way I always saw it.
Hmm... you are right, but partly. If something is being used, people say
it's good, it works for a group of people who need it and suddenly someone
comes in and says 'hey, guys! That stuff is a lousy piece of code, bloat and
absolutely not necessary here - throw it away because it's bad!' then THAT
person has to prove he's right, correct?

marek

--XOIedfhf+7KOe/yw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEAREBAAYFAjhiiNEACgkQq3909GIf5urRBQCeMBGK5k2Kub0OM41JtziG6e6j
YSoAnA0HjI1qd2Dj8yHydNRL7tQuD5Bm
=5/pO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--XOIedfhf+7KOe/yw--

-
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/