> Will this "efficient low level device driver" work over a network as
> well as X does?
sure. any ggi-app can run using an X-window.
> Given that gigabit ethernet is just around the corner,
> bandwidth is _not_ a problem. I wouldn't like to see a situation
> develop where game writers choose a limiting, non-standard interface
> to get short-term performance increase. There already is a complete
> solution. It's called X.
>
> X or text. If you think X is too slow, fix it.
Before this is going to become a flamewar, would all you guys who think this
way please have a look at the famous "linux is obsolete" thread...
(e.g.: http://www.lh.umu.se/~bjorn/mhonarc-files/obsolete/ )
Lately it seems to become a problem for projects trying something new to
get accepted. Have a look at GNU-Hurd, the Berlin-Project or the GGI.
All of them get flamed if they are only named somewhere.
"There is X. Why are you doing the same again? Stop it!"
"There is Linux. Noone will ever use Hurd. Useless work..."
"X or text."
But why?? Can't you just think of something new? Do you fear this new thing
becomes important and all your knowledge 'bout todays things gets useless?
Come on, that can't be it. Let them do their work, you are not forced to
use it.
I'm not arguing for including the GGI (more correct: the KGI) into the
kernel. It's not ready for that. I would just like to see that they no
longer get flamed for doing their work.
Oh, and the console/graphic/fbdev subsystem is something that can be discussed
in 2.3, now is the time of stabilizing and bugfixing 2.2. Don't get
sticked into senseless flamewars.
Cu
Karsten
EMail: kapet@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de
WWW: http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~kapet/
Talk: kapet@dollerup.csn.tu-chemnitz.de
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/