Re: GGI, EGCS/PGCC, Kernel source

Jes Degn Soerensen (
24 Feb 1998 09:44:44 +0100

>>>>> "mharris" == mharris <> writes:

mharris> On 23 Feb 1998, Jes Degn Soerensen wrote:
>> There is also the question whether GGI is the right approach or
>> not!

mharris> And there isn't.

Of course there is. Everybody has the right to question the validity
of a new kernel subsystem, just because you happen to like a certain
approach it doesn't give you the right to decided what is right and
what is wrong.

mharris> GGI isn't just a huge bloated kernel patch.
mharris> It is a small kernel patch with userland libs. The kernel
mharris> part of GGI is called KGI and only puts into the kernel stuff
mharris> that HAS to be in the kernel.

Then show us what needs to go into the kernel .... OpenGL does not.

mharris> GGI is fairly simple IMHO. It will also be very powerful.

I can add the same lines to fbdev, now where does that leave us?

mharris> It is hard to judge something that is not complete, however a
mharris> lot of people certainly judge GGI without having even read
mharris> their webpages, mandate, etc...

mharris> Once one has read their stuff, it makes sense. Some
mharris> questions still arise, but it is NOT a bad thing like many
mharris> people make it out to be (without reading the web pages).

Well we had Geert try it out as an alternative to fbdev and it was not
very promising. This of course does not say that GGI hasn't become a
lot better (I belive it has) but I still need some good arguments to
convince me that GGI will actually do what we need at a reasonable

I do agree entirely with Alan when he says that bits from both camps
will be the right solution in the end.

I will try to find some time and get in sync with your pages though.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to