Well, it certainly sounds interesting, but I have a feeling that it's not
REALLY designed for large scale work, or at least that's not where it's
going to find it fort�.
For something like a "very small" device like that one on slashdot that was
the size of a matchbook, it would be great. However, I'm a dubious that it's
the way to go for "serious" work, which means things like permissions,
.htacces stuff, and more complicated path mapping... the list goes on.
Now on the other hand, if you had an INTEGRATED server, that lived partly in
the kernel, and partly in user space, that could get a lot more interesting.
But you still get down to the problem of a bad web server crashing the
machine... You have to be doing something pretty tight to justify the risk
of losing the box to trade off for such a minor improvement ( when you could
just simply throw more power at the solution, which is not a cop out, just
often the best way to do things ).
I still at times wish they hadn't put NFS into the kernel... or at least
finished it properly :)
Adam
> I know it's controversial, but what do people think
> about khttpd? I was pretty impressed when I heard it
> could pass off dynamic stuff to Apache... (or another
> web server - would it work with say, Zeus or AOLServer?)
>
> I realise it wouldn't be a great idea on a general
> purpose server, but if you had a machine dedicated to
> web serving, it would be ideal.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
