What WEB Server is running on the BBB out of the box?

Assuming you're running angstrom then what you're seeing is likely being served through node.js, look for something in the process list with node in it.

I guess I've got to look into this node.js thing.  All I really want to do is work my own web pages so that I can link 'run' radio buttons to my Bonescript files.  This would be similar to the "stock" pages that run the Blink demo on the BBB.  I'll look for the stock .js file location and reverse engineer how BB links them to the //192.168.7.2/Support/bone101/

Thanks for the heads up.

Here is a good intro to some node packages that serve up static content

http://www.sitepoint.com/serving-static-files-with-node-js/

Mike

Well it took way too long, but I finally found the files.

I guess most of the Linux users here are thinking, "Yeah. Duhh.  What took you so long"? Not being too familiar with either Linux or HTML, it was a challenge for me.  Anyway to finish the thread, they're here:

root@beaglebone:/usr/share/bone101/Support#

ls

BoneScript  bone101

The various WEB pages aren't as "flat" as I had expected.  Files are spread out in the various sub folders depending on where you are going on the WEB page.

Thanks Michael, that's exactly what I was looking for.  I wonder why those are left to a third party, not given as obvious examples in the docs.

selsinork wrote:

 

Thanks Michael, that's exactly what I was looking for.  I wonder why those are left to a third party, not given as obvious examples in the docs.

You mean in the node.js docs? I don't know why. It does seem like it would be helpful to point out a more sophisticated implementation. Of course it's possible that at the time the docs were written they hadn't quite figured out a good way to serve static content, and by the time they figured it out, third party implementations were available.

Mike

Michael Conners wrote:

 

You mean in the node.js docs? I don't know why. It does seem like it would be helpful to point out a more sophisticated implementation.

Yeah, I'd expect a 'just works' implementation that can replace your existing apache config should be page 1 of the node docs. Then guide people into learning more from there. Forcing people to climb a good part of the learning curve to do the most basic thing seems odd.

and by the time they figured it out, third party implementations were available.

and that's perfectly ok, as long as they put a link to those in a place that's easy to find.

Michael Conners wrote:

 

You mean in the node.js docs? I don't know why. It does seem like it would be helpful to point out a more sophisticated implementation.

Yeah, I'd expect a 'just works' implementation that can replace your existing apache config should be page 1 of the node docs. Then guide people into learning more from there. Forcing people to climb a good part of the learning curve to do the most basic thing seems odd.

and by the time they figured it out, third party implementations were available.

and that's perfectly ok, as long as they put a link to those in a place that's easy to find.