Contributed by jj on from the when will bsdnow serve episodes using http(8) dept.
On the 1 year anniversary episode of BSDNow, Kris and Allan interview OpenBSD's Reyk Flöter (reyk@) about the new httpd(8), in addition to the week's odds and ends in the world of BSD.
(Comments are closed)
By Anonymous Coward (213.161.64.50) on
Comments
By chronicdiscord (70.51.136.191) on
A cool thought, but the amount of work involved in such a thing, it'd be like an up to date pf being on FreeBSD.
Hell, the last time I read up on DragonFlyBSD, they still were not entirely done making it HAMMER-ified.
By Anonymous Coward (78.192.104.249) on
http://www.openbsdfoundation.org/gsoc2014.html#hammer
By Jorden Verwer (217.149.210.16) on
I'm not sure why slowcgi uses FastCGI instead of SCGI, but that might be part of the explanation, I suppose.
Comments
By Chris Cappuccio (chriscappuccio) on http://www.nmedia.net/chris/
>
> I'm not sure why slowcgi uses FastCGI instead of SCGI, but that might be part of the explanation, I suppose.
Probably because everything in the ports tree supports FastCGI, and nobody has ever heard of SCGI. The point is to make it useful.
Comments
By Jorden Verwer (217.149.210.16) on
Given that nginx (including the version that used to be in base) supports SCGI, I find your argument incredibly unconvincing. It seems more likely that FastCGI was just considered "good enough", without considering all alternatives. If so, I'd say it was unfortunate choice, at least in retrospect.
By Lars Schotte (80.152.30.211) gustik@gustik.eu on http://gustik.eu/
More importantly I would rather see it first in FreeBSD in competition to ZFS. However, these filesystems are only suitable for computers with a lot of RAM and a lot of disk space. So not really something one would need on his desktop. Server or NAS would be a good place for it.
I am puzzled how is it possible that we have the "same" UFS on these three (four when counting NetBSD and OpenBSD separately) BSDs and all of them are incompatible to each other. I would love to see some kind of consolidation there too. FreeBSD UFS2 is the best one, so I would love to see that, with all its features like NFSv4 or Posix ACLs, softupdate-journaling, maybe even MAC on all BSDs. Of course I understand that OpenBSD itself does not want to have ACLs because of some political reasons (because they believe that admins are too dumb to use them properly), I do not think that it hurts to have it. Weather it should be enabled per default is another question. It is not even on FreeBSD.
Back to HAMMER FS I once asked them on IRC if they could imagine having NFSv4 ACL support for HAMMER in DragonFlyBSD, of course someone would need to implement it on DragonFlyBSD fist, and then for HAMMER, because HAMMER is only supported on that BSD, but they were not hostile to this idea, just there is not enough developers with enough time (and money) to do it. Maybe it will come someday.