On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Geert Hendrickx wrote:

> Apart from the discussion whether or not we need a *httpd in base at all...
> 
> Has this been compared to other light-weight BSD-licensed http servers like
> e.g. lighttpd and thttpd?  What are the benefits of bozohttpd over those?

See my earlier email.

bozohttpd last time I looked and asked about did not do access logging. (I 
don't see that in the source in our src/libexec/httpd either.)

So I use BSD-licensed mini_httpd instead which does do logging. mini_httpd 
runs as a standalone chrooted daemon.

Now I see that bozohttpd supports standalone daemon mode and inetd mode.

Once it has logging, it will be great.

I think it is fine in NetBSD src as it will have more developers to work 
on it.

I think a statement needs to be written that defines the goals and 
purposes of NetBSD's httpd to keep out the bloat.

> I've been been using thttpd in a number of setups and I like it a lot.
> lighttpd is attractive too because of its fastCGI support, although I have
> less experience with it (than thttpd).

  Jeremy C. Reed