> On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 31 May 1996, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > >
> > > Kernel video is the _only_ complete solution. If you'd like to
> > > discuss this further, please join the Linux GGI mailing list.
> >
> > Sorry. You're wrong.
> >
> > The ONLY solution is X, and anything else is just noise. They should be
> > supported, but not at the cost of extra complexity in the kernel.
> >
> > End of discussion.
> >
> > Linus
> >
>
> I'm sorry to you both, but your both wrong. GGI isn't the only way it
> should be done, and neither is X. Dismissing one, or the other out of
> hand is just small mindedness.
>
> I like X (much better than anything MS have come up with), but I'd also like
> Linux to be more graceful about failing, eg, I keep having to reboot my
> box because I can't see what I'm doing, as a text mode <-> graphic mode
> switch just failed.
>
> GGI would handle such problems (and not just that ;), by knowing what
> the state the video card is, and how to get it back to a sane state,
> and it shouldn't add much (if anything) to the kernel due to the design (a
> generic module, a video card specific module, and the rest in user space
> libs). Even though the details are still unresolved, like the various
> /dev files names, and what they should do exactly, Ok, not small things,
> but not the basic ideas either.
>
> Bryn
> --
Rather then having to support every card natively why not just support
VESA standard version 2.0?