linker> On Sun, 22 Feb 1998, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> > 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.
[snip]
linker> It is a bit unfair (IMHO) to give something not included the
linker> thumbs down because it has had little testing outside of it's
linker> creators.. If it's not included in your kernel then it's
linker> guarnteed to get little testing.. Catch-22..
There is also the question whether GGI is the right approach or not!
On the m68k we need to use framebuffers and thus framebuffer consoles,
however I have not seen a lot of evidence that it will actually buy us
a lot to tale the GGI approach rather than the nice and fairly simple
`fbcon' style we use now. Bascially fbcon (and the abstract console
system) allows for framebuffer consoles, VGA-like text mode consoles,
consoles on weird devices such as TIGA boards and it allows for
screen-mode switching in the kernel, which is necessary for the
framebuffer devices. I can't see a lot of other graphics related
issues that needs to go into the kernel.
Hounestly, I do not follow the GGI development closely due to lack of
time, but what I hear from the m68k guys who have been spending time
playing with GGI I have not been overly impressed. Things might have
improved a lot but I still have the impression that GGI is not heading
for simplicity (no offense, I could be wrong), which I consider to be
one of the key issues.
Jes
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu