> Hmmm... So how would this be different from the http server for the linux > kernel, tux or whatever it's called? I don't normally deal w/ that kind of > stuff, I'm just curious.
Tux differs in a few ways 1) It's the option, not the default - most people just use plain Apache 2) If you use it, it's dangerous, but not AS dangerous as IIS, since Tux has to face external criticism. 3) Tux was actually more of an experiment - Tux consisted of two parts - a userland part and a kernel part. What happened is that the kernel people figured out based on the Tux code a lot of improvements they could make in the regular kernel (like 0-copy networking code - I think the sendfile() interface came from this). So think of Tux as more of a research project, where the kernel guys took the good stuff into the mainline kernel, but left the actual webserving to others. These days, Tux is actually mostly a userland project, because the things that really made it speedy got integrated in a more general and useful way into the kernel. 4) Tux never tried to do any CGI or anything tricky. I don't know if this is the same with IIS or not, but Tux only served static files. Jon > > Monte > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
