Re: Debian Policy based on the wrong technical assumptions
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Its very economical (easy use of very popular technology) and
> provides an universally accessible and standardized interface. Note
> that we are not talking about apache but about a small light weight
> webserver like boa.
Why do we have to avoid Apache? Unlike boa, it can be run from inetd,
it isn't measurably slower (may even be faster: see readings on 386SX
a ways back), takes up less resources (because of inetd), and even
handles .html.gz properly. Boa comes into consideration when you plan
on running both as daemons. Why would we do that when inetd works
fine for this purpose?
Contrary to popular belief, Apache is *not* large and enormous and
slow, like Netscape or MS's servers are. It just does the same stuff
in considerably less time and space. I've run it on every computer
I've had hooked up to a network, and I've *never* known it to be
obtrusive. Heck, it's faster than all of the browsers I use (except
netcat: yay netcat!).
Graham Hughes <firstname.lastname@example.org> MIME OK, PGP preferred
from stddisclaim import footer
pgp_fingerprint = "E9 B7 5F A0 F8 88 9E 1E 7C 62 D9 88 E1 03 29 5B"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
email@example.com . Trouble?
e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .