Messages in this thread | | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Console mapping problems? [I hear about these - I wanna know!] | Date | Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:55:45 -0700 (PDT) |
| |
> I'm not sure what you mean by 'sources' here. Different > manufacturers? Different types of video I/O?
Different data sources.
> > and the bandwidth of the data streams make it a unique case. > > OK, I will grant you this. But, *all* types of hardware have > their own unique peculiaries and must be handled differently. Indeed, the > bandwidth issue would seem to argue FOR kernel inclusion of video driver > code, since that code will be foundational and a lot of other kernel > subsections will interact with it. Those interactions can be much more > highly optimized and tweaked when the kernel-user barrier doesn't need to > be worked around. Look at NT 4.0. The video drivers weren't in the > kernel in 3.51, but were moved into the kernel in 4.0, and they got a LOT > of speed out of it.
> > However, when I say people are being too absolutist I mean both ways. > > I'm quite happy going with whomever puts out the better solution > > (XFree86 or GGI.) I'm just commenting on what I see. > > It hurts to be labeled an absolutist when we feel that we are > simply following established OS design principles.
Well, there are a number of "established OS design principles" -- one of them is "don't do it in kernel space unless you absolutely have to." Linux has a problem with people trying to put way too many things in kernel space, and putting a brake on that is usually necessary.
> > The flame from > > about a year and a half ago ("we're going commercial" or something > > like that) was the straw that broke the camel's back for a number of > > people. > > That was an off-the-cuff remark born out of frustration. GPLed > code cannot be 'taken commercial' in any case. > > > To be frank, I would be very hesitant to "defend the validity of > > your ideas" in any *other* form than working code -- may it be fair or > > not, you have exceeded your hot air quota by quite a bit. > > Indeed, and as I mentioned before I have, since the last GGI > flamewar on this list, made a point of not even *mentioning* the GGI on > this list - even when GGI-related issues came up, I bit my tounge and went > back to coding. However, I WILL NOT stand idly by when attacks on or > misstatements about the GGI are made, on this list or anywhere else. We > have enough work ahead of us without having everyone in the Linux > community considering us to be 'flakes' and 'full of hot air'.
Speaking personally; maybe you guys ought to consider making status summaries ("this is what we have so far") and post them. I think the perception is still pretty widely spread that since you didn't get unconditional approval from the start, you went off in a huff.
That is, if you care.
-hpa
| |