Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jun 1999 21:30:36 +1000 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about devfs) |
| |
Alan Cox writes: > > I find khttpd is a reasonable idea. I dont know what youre talking about > > with "lower performance than a user space httpd", > > http://www.fenrus.demon.nl/ seems to indicate otherwise -- what > > performance measurements were you looking at? B)
For the record, I'm with Alan on this one. I'd rather see a more general interface rather than just khttpd.
> phhttpd. > > > Now if you plug khttpd in front of apache the advantages become obvious. > > Apache isnt exactly a speed demon -- but with khttpd it could be. > > Apache 2.0 should be. > > BTW: the big issue with khttpd is a lack of genericness. Its a > single problem single solution piece of code. There are lots and > lots of equivalent problems and they all boil own to the same thing.
Which is one of my points about devfs: it's a generic solution to a range of problems.
Regards,
Richard....
- 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/
| |