> > 2.) is there any movement to include GGI into the kernel distribution? if
> > not, why not? is it *bad code* (tm) ?
>
> It's not a question of good or bad code, it's a question of what it buys,
> and whether people are using it and whether it can be considered stable
> and generic enough to warrant inclusion in the standard kernel. So far I
> haven't heard enough of people using it to even consider it.
>
> Linus
Well, I've used it.. Including kernel part, kgi. Unfortunatly, I have been
able to try the kernel part much because the kernel is a moving target..
Perhaps once we have 2.2 I'll be able to give GGI a through work through..
It is a bit unfair (IMHO) to give something not included the thumbs down
because it has had little testing outside of it's creators.. If it's not
included in your kernel then it's guarnteed to get little testing..
Catch-22..
This isn't as much of a problem when there is a stable kernel
handy (Dont point out there is one now.. It's so far away fro the 2.1
kernel and further more, all the computers I can spare are running 2.1 and
all the 2.0 boxen cant be used for expirmental stuff)..
Perhaps during 2.2 (before you beging 2.3) the kernel will move slower and
allow some more ironing out of GGI.. Then you can include it in when 2.3
starts up..
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu