Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 1 Jun 1996 19:48:58 -0700 (PDT) | From | root <> | Subject | Re: SVGA kernel chipset drivers. |
| |
On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Bryn Paul Arnold Jones wrote:
> 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?
|  |