Re: GGI debate and etc.
Sun, 1 Mar 1998 20:38:09 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Bill Broadhurst 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.

The kernel is something that is always going to expand in size
(in terms of the size of the source code). I don't think it is a
valid argument to exclude something just on the grounds that it
makes for a bigger download, and more hard disk space once
unpacked. It might be an inconvenience to some users, such as
yourself, however it would not be too difficult to write a script
that would delete unneeded stuff out of the kernel tree. In fact
someone just recently posted a patch to this list I believe that
stores the entire kernel source tree as a bunch of blah.c.gz
compressed source files, and decompresses each one on the fly.

Lets not let personal preferences stifle progress and creativity.
We all have different needs/wants/uses for Linux, and making a
single kernel that will please everyone is next to impossible.

> 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.

So, space isn't an issue then, and thus not a valid argument.
Name calling is not a valid argument either. I don't see the
relationship between someone "being a bimbo", and someone wanting
to include GGI in the kernel.

Arguments/debates hold a lot more weight when you stick to the
facts, and don't resort to name calling and other such self
defeating antics..

> > 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.
> 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.

And it WILL be just that. GGI doesn't mean that everything is
graphical, nor does it mean that there is graphics code inside
the kernel. If you had read the GGI webpages, and their mandate,
you would be aware of this fact. If GGI is included sometime in
the future into the mainstream kernel, I highly doubt that ANYONE
will be FORCED to compile it in. It would probably default to:

< > KGI - Kernel Graphics Interface support?

Notice that it may be a module... This is what they are planning
to do I believe, make it a config option for GGI/KGI support, and
then allow it as a module, as well as being built right in.

> I don't use X and I won't use GGI, so I will object to having either
> in the kernel.

I don't use SCSI cards, and don't use UNIX sockets, and if I were
to object to them being allowed in the kernel, I think I'd be
peeing up a rope.

There is a difference between 'preferences' and 'options'.
Options are things that you can either choose to use, or choose
not to use. Preferences are things that you prefer, and when
there are options, you can decide which option you like based on
your preferences - and everyone is happy.

By not allowing options, one can't decide to go with their own
preferences, and are thus stuck with a totalitarian 'this is the
way I like it so everyone else can just deal with it regardless
of their own reasons' attitude.

Options are progress, resistance to change for the better, and
resistance to other peoples ideas is counterproductive, and
doesn't help out with anything at all in the long run. We should
be working together to contribute to a better whole for EVERYONE,
rather than focusing in on our own personal preferences.

That is my humble opinion anyway. Yours may vary, as your ideas
may be different than mine.

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