lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: GGI Project Unhappy On Linux
Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>
> My X server doesn't crash. I change back and forth between text mode
> and the X server all the time and it doesn't crash. My system hasn't
> crashed due to an X server problem in literally years.

My X server does not crash either. There were a few cases where
I have seen X11 crash Linux. All were involved in trying to
do a linear mapping of the frame buffer, where it was mapped over
system ram. All cases were solved by a proper X configuration.
I do not see how GGI or KGI can handle these cases better.

> If you want to be taken seriously, it would help if you lost the
> attitude. There's a certain amount of fanaticism with the GGI folks
> which causes them to lose a lot of credibility, at least for some of us.

There is a certain amount of fanaticism with Linux users in
general. In some cases that fanaticism is going too far (or
causes damage if it is pointed at people outside the Linux community).

> Your attitude really reminds of the BSD folks who have been shrilly
> insisting on Usenet that asyncronous updates of filesystem metadata is
> horrible, and so Linux users *must* be losing data all the time. Never
> mind the fact that people haven't been losing that way --- it still
> becomes a religious issue for them.

(this is off topic for this thread but I cannot resist answering)
I never(*) lost data in the few years that I am using Linux. I would
however like to have synchronous metadata updates as an option.
This option is required to support logging (or journaling) file
systems.
(*) except when I had a buggy firmware on a Conner SCSI disk. I bet
synchronous metadata updates could not save me from that.

My opinion about GGI: The GGI team should be given a deadline and
a list of conditions that have to be satisfied before GGI enters an
official kernel release. In any case it cannot happen before 2.3. My
absolute minimum requirement is the ability to completely disable GGI
under a config option.

If GGI does not stand to expectations during the development phase of
2.3.X it can be removed before the release of 2.4 (or will it be 3.0).
We have seen kerneld go away. It can be done to GGI as well.



Itai
--
Itai Nahshon nahshon@actcom.co.il
Also nahshon@vnet.ibm.com

-
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 13:42    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans