From marcus@wordit.com  Wed May 26 17:39:30 1999
Received: from beach.frankfurt.netsurf.de (root@beach.frankfurt.netsurf.de [194.64.181.2])
	by swi.swi.psy.uva.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA28706
	for <prolog@swi.psy.uva.nl>; Wed, 26 May 1999 17:39:30 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from winona (deck-92.frankfurt.netsurf.de [194.64.181.124])
	by beach.frankfurt.netsurf.de (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA09945
	for <prolog@swi.psy.uva.nl>; Wed, 26 May 1999 17:39:31 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-ID: <199905261739180340.00C59766@mail.frankfurt.netsurf.de>
X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.00.00.14 (1)
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 17:39:18 +0200
From: "marcus" <marcus@wordit.com>
To: prolog@swi.psy.uva.nl
Subject: standalone executable vs. swi on server
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thanks, for the hints on the font settings. I've not been getting much
sleep lately ;-)

Another issue I need help on is the following. My ISP will be ugrading
next week and could install SWI on his Linux server.
Question: Would this be beneficial, or is it just as easy/good to
create a standalone SWI executable ?(if that is the right word? still a
little confused about that issue).
Is there a speed difference?
Is it a lot of hassle with the standalone program?

In any case I would need the 'pillow' library for CGI, whether I run
SWI on the server or create a standalone executable, correct?

Thanks for any info on this, I'd like to act while my ISP is in
'install-fest mood', so I don't have to beg a special favour and wait
in the future.

Marcus Friedlaender

marcus@wordit.com



