Messages in this thread | | | From | mharris@ican ... | Date | Sun, 1 Mar 1998 21:10:02 -0500 (EST) | Subject | Re: GGI, EGCS/PGCC, Kernel source |
| |
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Nathan Uno wrote:
> > X different drivers means X times acceleration functions in the > > kernel or am I missing something here? (no it doesn't matter that one > > should only compile what one uses, its still in the kernel tree). > > I'm not sure I see a way around having sources in the kernel tree. > Either you support a piece of graphics hardware, or you don't. If > linux wants to support graphics hardware, the drivers have to be in the > kernel tree. Is that a bad thing? > > If it is, then adding hardware support to the kernel is ALWAYS a bad > thing. I know of very few pieces of hardware that EVERYONE wants to > use. Your logic seems to be that drivers that not everyone needs are > source bloat.
No, I don't think that is his exact opinion. I think his logic is more: 'that drivers that HE doesn't use are source bloat'.
Mike A. Harris | Homepage: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris Computer Consultant | I collect and browse commercial email sent to: root@127.0.0.1 URL: Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |