lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: GGI Project Unhappy On Linux
Manuel J. Galan wrote:
> Maybe instead of bloating the kernel with more and more services,
> it would be wiser to unload it as much as possible keeping the
> bare essentials?

Exactly.
The bare essentials should go in the kernel.

There is a problem.
The Xservers are crashing systems.

There is a solution.
Put the bare essentials into the kernel so that
Xservers can be written which don't crash systems.

There is a project.
The project is GGI.
One tiny part of the project is KGI.
GGI is big.
KGI is small.
Only KGI is going into the kernel.
GGI is not going into the kernel.
Big bad GGI is NOT going into the kernel.
Only tiny little bare essential KGI is going in the kernel.

KGI is going into the kernel because Xservers crash systems.
KGI is inevitable because Xservers crash systems.
KGI isn't going away because there are no other proposals to
deal with the problem that Xservers crash systems.

X is nice.
There will be a KGI because X is nice.
Those who say we don't need a KGI because we have X are
talking nonsense.
We need KGI because we need X.
A particular kind of X.
An X that doesn't crash systems.

If you need X then you need KGI.

If you disagree with that, and expect to be taken
seriously by GGI/KGI supporters, then propose another
solution to the problem that Xservers crash systems.

If you can't solve that problem then please get out
of the way of the people who can.
--
_~|__
>@ (vagn( /
\`-ooooooooo-'/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans