> Why remove the GUI? It's a nice and easy way to change settings. If shttpd > is only installed as a service, how will users changes settings?
via the config file > Frankly, I don't think moving shttpd as a service is worth it. The reason > people use it is because it's easy to install and run, and moving it to a > service just makes things more complicated. I recently found a conversation log on some IRC channel, where one guy suggested using shttpd, and the other guy replied that the settings dialog is way too complicated for the average user. That rang a bell for me. The last thing I want to do is to make things complex. 's' in "shttpd" means simple, and I really want to keep it simple. Look at yourself: you were confused when failed to edit passwords file, and this is shttpd's GUI version fault since it ignores command line arguments. Adding the passwords file edition into the GUI? That would be too much. All this makes windows and unix versions different in functionality. > Besides, all it takes to having shttp start at run-time is to either create > a shortcut in the Start folder, or add a key in the Run section of the > Registry. > > What technical reasons are there to move to a service? There are no technical reasons. only "strategic" ones. I am still not sure about the GUI. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ shttpd-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shttpd-general
