Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 19 Jun 1999 20:44:12 +0200 | From | Marek Habersack <> | Subject | Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about |
| |
* 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) > > > > > > 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. > > 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 [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |