Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:06:12 -0800 | From | Bill Broadhurst <> | Subject | Re: GGI debate and etc. |
| |
On Wed, Feb 25, 1998 at 01:02:13PM +0200, Jari Soderholm wrote: > > Yep , I also do not understand why people oppose GGI > > some say that GGI make kernel bigger, and then they use > use X windows , how much memory does X take ? > > what does the kernel size matter if people use applications > that take terrible amounts of memory compared to that what the kernel > takes. > > There are plenty of reasons for why GGI is the best thing ever > for Linux, and I really hate that some people are so blinded > on their own views.
Not blinded, just indifferent. I don't want GGI in the kernel because I don't want to waste space on my system for it's code. Not that space is an issue, I have many megabytes free. I just object to having to waste any of it just because some bimbo wants graphics.
> > many programmers would love to have very simple low level > graphics interface that does not take too much time to learn and > is fast. > > My personal opinion as an user who has used X windows > for 6 years, is that X windows is dead system and keeping > it as only choise for graphical programs and multimedia > seriously limites interest for making graphical programs > for Linux.
As it should be. Graphics should be an add-on for those who want to use them. Not forced on the rest of us who don't want 'em.
I don't use X and I won't use GGI, so I will object to having either in the kernel.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Bill Broadhurst | Independent contract Engineer. (619)296-3710 | BIOS, Firmware, & Diagnostics. bbroad@CX492564-a.dt1.sdca.home.com | Finger for PGP 5.0 public key. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |