Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 12:47:23 +0800 (WST) From: Terry Dwyer <tdwyer@netbsd08.dn.itg.telecom.com.au> To: Terry Lee <teren@lyria.stanford.edu> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>, hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: httpd as part of the system. Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.90.950326115415.13897B-100000@netbsd08.dn.itg.telecom.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950325182323.8842B-100000@lyria.stanford.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 25 Mar 1995, Terry Lee wrote:
> > 1. httpd. I don't really know which variant is best, though John Fieber
> > (our Docmaster) has a preference which I'm perfectly happy to follow
> > (I think it's the CERN httpd).
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone.
>
> CERN seems to have more features, but my experience so far is that there
> are many many more NCSA httpd installations out there. This can be a
> serious problem since administration can be quite different on the two
> systems. If you want to raise httpd to a standard component, I'd
> recommend NCSA since it seems to be the more standard standard.
Some of what you say is certainly true, NCSA does seem to be a more
of a "standard". Here are a couple of reasons why I think this is the
case.
1) People look at NCSA software and (probably) by association with
Mosaic and Netscape think NCSA == WWW. I've tried the NCSA server, and
it certainly is easy to build and performs admirably. This does not
necessarily mean it should become the default server.
2) Configuration of the CERN server is much more complex and although
there are a pile of docs for it, why bother to build a more complex
package when a simple one will do.
If there is to be a "default" server it should serve the needs of
everyone, including those who would be otherwise left looking for a
solution that others already have - i.e., those behind a firewall. I am
in such a position, so had to setup a proxy to a proxy, which the NCSA
server cannot do, it can't even do a simple proxy. This is not an easy
task if you have to build and install socks as well.
If the CERN server and socks were provided as a complementary pair with
an appropriate install and configuration script which built, installed
and configured (optionally) both or just the CERN server, the needs of
all users could be met. I don't think size is an issue, after all, the
directories containing the html stuff are likely to grow to such a size
as to make the binaries insignificant. They have on my server anyway.
You raise the issue of administration. I don't understand why this would
be a problem, if you have the NCSA server you administer it, if you have
the CERN server you administer it. Anyone ambitious enough to run
multiple different servers should become famimiar with both or just run
one.
I understand the firewall code is already implemented in 2.x, why
shouldn't we also be able to have a proxying W3 server running on the same
gateway?
Just my humble opinion, FWIW
_-_|\ Terry Dwyer E-Mail: tdwyer@netbsd08.dn.itg.telecom.com.au
/ \ System Administrator Phone: +61 9 491 5161 Fax: +61 9 221 2631
*_.^\_/ Telecom Australia Telstra Corporation MIME capable mailer
v Perth WA ( I do not speak for Telstra or Telecom )
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.90.950326115415.13897B-100000>