httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Configure to say how to make Configuration
Date Tue, 02 Dec 1997 17:48:26 GMT
On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Paul Sutton wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Marc Slemko wrote:
> > No.  The idea is that with a source distribution, there is no reason to
> > include extraneous modules because all they do is add bloat and bugs.  The
> > only reason they are included with a binary distribition is because of the
> > idea that if someone can't get a C compiler, they aren't likely to be
> > overly concerned about bloat and the tradeoff is acceptable.  There is no
> > need to make any such tradeoff when they can compile it themself.  
> Not sure I agree with this. Turning it around, you seem to be saying... 
> "if you can't be arsed to get a C compiler, you obviously don't care about
> performance or reliablity". Surely there are plenty of people who do care
> about the latter but aren't really inclined to fiddle with C compilers. 

I doubt it.  Having extra modules doesn't really hurt reliability at all,
and only hurts performance a trivial bit.  The only reason to leave
modules out (with a few small exceptions) is to remove a very small size
and performance overhead.  With most commercial packages (eg. IIS) you
don't have the choice anyway.  

For people that need _that extent_ of optimization, etc. they need to
compile themself.  For everyone else, it adds such a trivial overhead to
include extra modules compared to the functionality you gain that I see it

> Just look at NT system admins. They rarely have C compilers, but want a
> fast and reliable OS....  Um, but they run NT. Hey I think this proves
> your point. Oh well, I think I'll implode now. 

NT is different.  C compilers take so little effort to obtain for any Unix
that we make binary distributions that if they don't have one they really
_can't_ be running a "serious" server.

View raw message