Re: GGI, EGCS/PGCC, Kernel source
Sun, 1 Mar 1998 21:10:02 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Nathan Uno wrote:

> > X different drivers means X times acceleration functions in the
> > kernel or am I missing something here? (no it doesn't matter that one
> > should only compile what one uses, its still in the kernel tree).
> I'm not sure I see a way around having sources in the kernel tree.
> Either you support a piece of graphics hardware, or you don't. If
> linux wants to support graphics hardware, the drivers have to be in the
> kernel tree. Is that a bad thing?
> If it is, then adding hardware support to the kernel is ALWAYS a bad
> thing. I know of very few pieces of hardware that EVERYONE wants to
> use. Your logic seems to be that drivers that not everyone needs are
> source bloat.

No, I don't think that is his exact opinion. I think his logic
is more: 'that drivers that HE doesn't use are source bloat'.

Mike A. Harris | Homepage:
Computer Consultant |
I collect and browse commercial email sent to: root@
URL: Sun Microsystems

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