Re: Console mapping problems? [I hear about these - I wanna know!]

Jon M. Taylor (
Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:01:58 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

OK guys, you asked for it....

> > Yes - but device access MUST be _moderated_ by the kernel!
> > (unlike X)
> > But that's neither here nor now - and noone is likely to allow this into
> > the kernel even if it worked <sigh>. Been through that fight before
> > (though I was a spectator the last time).
> I disagree; an arbiter process (such as the X server) can do that just
> as well as the kernel.

No it cannot. Not even close.

> I think people are being too absolutist about
> this.

Sure, here we go again with the assertion that video hardware is
somehow so very very diferent from all other kinds of hardware in a
computer that it must be handled in a way that is markedly different (and
inferior). It is *quite* obvious to all of us involved in the GGI project
that this is very much not the case, and since we have been hacking the
kernel for over two years now I would say that we come from a far more
knowledgeable perspective on this issue than most on this list, at least
moreso than those who seem to not be able to resist GGI-bashing.

> Of course, the fact that the GGI people so far has failed to
> produce anything but hot air sort of reinforces that feeling....

Give me a break. When was the last time you looked at our code?
We have produced a hell of a lot more than hot air, and we'd be making
even more progress if people on this list would come work with us instead
of whining on this list when they need the odd bit of font setting or
whatever in the kernel.

The fact continues to remain that there is no other coding effort
in the Linux community relating to kernel graphics/console subsystem
revision that is anywhere close to as advanced as the GGI is now. We have
a very active mailing list, our source tree grows daily, progress is very
rapid these days and we have all the elements of a completely new and very
advanced and flexible console subsystem replacement already worked out.
Drivers are getting written, bugs are getting fixed, and progress is being

We walk the walk while others merely talk the talk. We are not
afraid to defend the validity of our ideas (on this list or anywhere
else), and back them up with running code. Given the scope of the GGI
project (an almost total rewrite of the Linux console subsystem), we are
doing pretty damn well, thank you very much, especially when you consider
the almost total lack of cooperation and assistance we have recieved from
the rest of the core kernel development team (exceptions noted - we know
who you are and we thank you).

In conclusion, I suggest that everyone on this list go visit, read the FAQ, download the GGI source tree,
and educate themselves about this issue. It is NOT going to go away, and
neither are we.

Jon "GGI is The Right Thing To Do (TM)" Taylor