For me, X15 are three alphanumeric characters.
I'd love to try it, though.
As for TUX, I would certainly prefer user-space if it was indeed as fast
in all cases. But I don't think X15 is really a factor in TUX's
inclusion. I'd say replacing khttpd with TUX2 is a no-brainer unless
X15's performance has been proven and it's GPL. And while khttpd is an
interesting example, it really rocks at small image serving. I've had
it in production since 2.4.0-test1.
-- Ken. email@example.com
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 06:54:41PM -0500, Robert Love wrote: | On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 18:33, J Sloan wrote: | | > So, just out of curioisity, why is khttpd in | > the kernel? If there were any web server | > in the mainline kernel I'd think it'd be tux - | | Personally khttpd should be ripped from the kernel. It is a nice, uh, | example. Or something. | | TUX touches enough code that it isn't a clear decision to merge, | although it is certainly worth it. I, however, think we are rapidly | approaching the point, if not there already, that with a zero-copy | network driver userspace can perform as good as TUX with none of the | downsides. That was part of Ingo's goal and a lot of the benefits - | sendfile etc - are a result of TUX. | | Anyhow, if I recall correctly, X15 performed better than TUX. | | Robert Love | | - | To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in | the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org | More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html | Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/