Re: GGI debate and etc.
Sun, 1 Mar 1998 20:53:22 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Bill Broadhurst wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 25, 1998 at 02:00:21PM -0500, Nathan Uno wrote:
> > On 25 Feb, Bill Broadhurst wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, do you use the sound stuff? If you don't/didn't use
> > it, should it go in the kernel? Did you/would you object?
> >
> > What about the Amateur Radio stuff? Did you object to that?
> >
> Don't much like having it there either. Wasn't given a chance to
> object. In any case, it's not on the same scale of waste. There are
> already working video units in the kernel. There aren't working AR
> drivers. Nevertheless, I would vote to strip the things out if there
> were to be a vote.
> But then I only have seven Linux systems here, so it's a small vote.

And a very small vote at best. There are millions of Linux
users out there, and your opinion is but one out of these

I think that any code that is kernel-ready, and that many users
can benefit from should be included in the kernel period. I
don't care how big the kernel source tree is. If it were a 30M
tarball, that would be fine with me. I wouldn't doubt it if
someone comes up with a special program that will only extract
needed source files out of the kernel prior to compilation
anyways. The kernel is going to continue to get larger, that is
not going to change. Space is not an issue IMHO. If someone
can't fit it on their system, then it is time to buy a new hard

Mike A. Harris | Homepage:
Computer Consultant |
I collect and browse commercial email sent to: root@
The Art Bell (#1 talk radio) homepage:

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