Re: GGI debate and etc.

Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU)
Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:12:38 +1100

Bill Broadhurst writes:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 1998 at 01:02:13PM +0200, Jari Soderholm wrote:
> >
> > Yep , I also do not understand why people oppose GGI
> >
> > some say that GGI make kernel bigger, and then they use
> > use X windows , how much memory does X take ?
> >
> > what does the kernel size matter if people use applications
> > that take terrible amounts of memory compared to that what the kernel
> > takes.
> >
> > There are plenty of reasons for why GGI is the best thing ever
> > for Linux, and I really hate that some people are so blinded
> > on their own views.
> Not blinded, just indifferent. I don't want GGI in the kernel
> because I don't want to waste space on my system for it's code.
> Not that space is an issue, I have many megabytes free. I just
> object to having to waste any of it just because some bimbo
> wants graphics.

"Bimbo". What an arrogant, selfish attitude. I use graphics to do some
serious scientific visualisation. I *need* performance. I'm sure there
are drivers in the kernel that you depend on but I don't. How would
you feel I said they were a waste of space and should be removed from
the kernel source tree? Just go and download them separately and hope
that there's a patch for the kernel version you want.

Now, I don't use games, and have no interest in them, But if someone
else wants some driver added to the kernel that allows them to play
some game, I don't mind, provided it doesn't increase the kernel
source by 20 MBytes or something (I do care about download
times). Which it shouldn't: if lots of driver code is needed by KGI
(pure speculation here, I'm not claiming that the KGI source tree is
large) to support lots of different cards, then designing a fairly
static kernel API would allow them to have a small amount of code in
the kernel source tree and a separate tarball of video drivers. So I
don't see any need for kernel source/binary bloat.

> > many programmers would love to have very simple low level
> > graphics interface that does not take too much time to learn and
> > is fast.
> >
> > My personal opinion as an user who has used X windows
> > for 6 years, is that X windows is dead system and keeping
> > it as only choise for graphical programs and multimedia
> > seriously limites interest for making graphical programs
> > for Linux.

Some of us write graphics/GUI code which works for all Unices. X,
despite it's problems, is the only choice.

> As it should be. Graphics should be an add-on for those who want
> to use them. Not forced on the rest of us who don't want 'em.
> I don't use X and I won't use GGI, so I will object to having either
> in the kernel.

And I object to the stuff in the kernel you depend on but I
don't. Wow. What a mature attitude. Fortunately Linus will decide on
technical merit, not whether he personally uses something.



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