Re: win32 http server
Andrew D Lenharth wrote:
> This is the case I was thinkinbg of. This is especially true if
> installing another arch. Installing the my alpha and sparc (neither
> had as cdrom) would have been much easier if I had a win http server. As
> it was I could use nfs, but not everyone will be able to.
> A new user without another unix box around who wants to install debian on
> a machine without a cdrom drive could really use this.
> Andrew Lenharth
> On 3 Feb 2000, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > Adam Di Carlo <email@example.com> writes:
> > > Andrew D Lenharth <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > We should supply a win32 http serverfor use with installation. Ideally,
> > > > we need one that will run under a user account on NT (no administator
> > > > access required), and requires little or no set up.
> > >
> > > Um, why would we want to do that?
> > The one reason that occurs to me immediately is so that a Debian
> > machine can be conveniently installed from a Windows machine
> > across a network, which could for instance be useful if the
> > Debian box lacked a CD-ROM drive.
> > --
We could just assume that other OS's can look after themselves, and
provide there own servers.
But to better achive your goal, what about using a java ftp server, that
would stay OS independent.
Is there any advantage in using http instead of ftp?
It would still need a java runtime environment, but it could probalby
work from a browser.
Ive seen a few java ftp servers around the place