On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:41:55PM +, Doug MacFarlane wrote:
>
> Team:
>
> I need to put up a simple, HTML-only site. No database/CGI/anything.
>
> Apache looks like overkill.
>
> Can you recommend a nice, compact, efficient alternative?
IIRC there is a Linux kernel based webserver, whi
Boa - Small footprint, easy setup.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:41:55PM +, Doug MacFarlane wrote:
> Team:
>
> I need to put up a simple, HTML-only site. No database/CGI/anything.
>
> Apache looks like overkill.
>
> Can you recommend a nice, compact, efficient alternative?
>
> TIA
>
> ma
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:41:55PM +, Doug MacFarlane wrote:
> I need to put up a simple, HTML-only site. No database/CGI/anything.
> Apache looks like overkill.
> Can you recommend a nice, compact, efficient alternative?
Try fnord. It small, secure and very fast. You can find it on
http:/
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 16:41, Doug MacFarlane wrote:
>
> Team:
>
> I need to put up a simple, HTML-only site. No database/CGI/anything.
>
> Apache looks like overkill.
>
> Can you recommend a nice, compact, efficient alternative?
I'm using thttpd. It's secure, simple to configure and its me
Doug MacFarlane, 2002-Oct-16 14:41 +:
>
> Team:
>
> I need to put up a simple, HTML-only site. No database/CGI/anything.
>
> Apache looks like overkill.
>
> Can you recommend a nice, compact, efficient alternative?
>
> TIA
>
> madmac
I use apache for HTML-only. It may be overkill, b
5 matches
Mail list logo