> >>>>> "Mike" == mharris <mharris@ican.net> writes:
>
> Mike> Now that I've said that, let me clarify exactly what it is that
> Mike> I'm saying.
>
> Mike> I personally favor the idea of GGI, but I also favor the idea of
> Mike> it being a CONFIG TIME OPTION. In other words, you select GGI
> Mike> at compile time should you so desire, and if not, you pick the
> Mike> old console code, etc... So in no way whatsoever do I think
> Mike> that GGI should be shoved down anyone's neck, nor that I should
> Mike> decide anything about the kernel at all.
>
> Sorry, but isn't that a pretty bad idea.
Yeah, but it gets the recalcitrant users off our back |->.
Seriously, I have no problem with people being given choices.
> If it is decided to go the
> GGI way (or some other way for that sake), I think the chosen solution
> should cover all cases. Having this as a config option would mean a
> lot of duplicated code and at least to me it indicates that a given
> solution is not good enough as it does not solve the problems (this
> applies to any solution - I don't think we should have two console
> systems in the kernel, except maybe for a certain development time).
But you can't expect everyone to make the jump at once! GGI has
tried very hard to make the transition as painless as possible, by
providing replacements for SVGAlib and X that work with GGI. But there
will always be hitches and older software that breaks, as well as an
inevitable shaking-out period where hidden interactions between KGI and
the rest of the kernel surface in odd situations. People may not want to
mess with it initially.
> Mike> The KERNEL should control video mode switching at a bare minimum
> Mike> IMHO. This is only *MY* opinion however, and I'm certainly not
> Mike> shoving it at anyone. I personally believe that it should be
> Mike> that way however, and so far that the GGI project will be
> Mike> something fantastic for many linux users.
>
> We do not disagree on the video mode switching, its already in the
> kernel (for some architectures).
>
> Mike> I've got 64Mb of RAM in my system, and if KGI takes up less than
> Mike> 200k of kernel code, I'm happy. I'm sure it will make many
> Mike> others happy as well. Those that don't want/cant afford to
> Mike> cough up to 200k of memory for "kernel bloat" should pick "NO"
> Mike> to GGI when compiling a kernel and be all the happier.
>
> If GGI ends up requiring 200KB, then something is definately wrong
> with it in my oppinion.
It won't, unless someone had three different cards in their system
for multiheading or something, thus needing three different drivers.
> We should shoot for having one console system
> and if that is too big to be used on the smaller machines then I
> consider it to be broken, telling people to buy more RAM is not an
> option and a config option is a very bad solution on the long term.
Oh, in the LONG term, yeah! Sure! I thought you wanted one "day
of reckoning" where every 2.3.x user HAD to do a complete move to GGI
between one kernel revision and the next.
--- 'Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God.' - Scientist G. Richard Seed
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu