On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Vagn Scott wrote:
> Manuel J. Galan wrote:
> > Maybe instead of bloating the kernel with more and more services,
> > it would be wiser to unload it as much as possible keeping the
> > bare essentials?
>
> Exactly.
> The bare essentials should go in the kernel.
>
> There is a problem.
> The Xservers are crashing systems.
>
> There is a solution.
> Put the bare essentials into the kernel so that
> Xservers can be written which don't crash systems.
>
> There is a project.
> The project is GGI.
> One tiny part of the project is KGI.
> GGI is big.
> KGI is small.
> Only KGI is going into the kernel.
> GGI is not going into the kernel.
> Big bad GGI is NOT going into the kernel.
> Only tiny little bare essential KGI is going in the kernel.
>
> KGI is going into the kernel because Xservers crash systems.
> KGI is inevitable because Xservers crash systems.
> KGI isn't going away because there are no other proposals to
> deal with the problem that Xservers crash systems.
>
> X is nice.
> There will be a KGI because X is nice.
> Those who say we don't need a KGI because we have X are
> talking nonsense.
> We need KGI because we need X.
> A particular kind of X.
> An X that doesn't crash systems.
>
> If you need X then you need KGI.
>
> If you disagree with that, and expect to be taken
> seriously by GGI/KGI supporters, then propose another
> solution to the problem that Xservers crash systems.
>
> If you can't solve that problem then please get out
> of the way of the people who can.
> --
> _~|__
> >@ (vagn( /
> \`-ooooooooo-'/
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu