Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:12:38 +1100 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: GGI debate and etc. |
| |
Bill Broadhurst writes: > 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.
"Bimbo". What an arrogant, selfish attitude. I use graphics to do some serious scientific visualisation. I *need* performance. I'm sure there are drivers in the kernel that you depend on but I don't. How would you feel I said they were a waste of space and should be removed from the kernel source tree? Just go and download them separately and hope that there's a patch for the kernel version you want.
Now, I don't use games, and have no interest in them, But if someone else wants some driver added to the kernel that allows them to play some game, I don't mind, provided it doesn't increase the kernel source by 20 MBytes or something (I do care about download times). Which it shouldn't: if lots of driver code is needed by KGI (pure speculation here, I'm not claiming that the KGI source tree is large) to support lots of different cards, then designing a fairly static kernel API would allow them to have a small amount of code in the kernel source tree and a separate tarball of video drivers. So I don't see any need for kernel source/binary bloat.
> > 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.
Some of us write graphics/GUI code which works for all Unices. X, despite it's problems, is the only choice.
> 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.
And I object to the stuff in the kernel you depend on but I don't. Wow. What a mature attitude. Fortunately Linus will decide on technical merit, not whether he personally uses something.
Regards,
Richard....
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |