Re: [Dri-devel] my X-Kernel question

[Frank E. <fe...@co...>]

On Monday 22 October 2001 23:04, Derrik Pates wrote:

> Not to burst anyone's bubble here, guys, but shades of GGI going on. Do
> you guys really want to dredge up all this debate, covering (pretty much)
> the same points you guys are addressing here? I'm not saying your ideas
> are bad, I'm not passing judgment on any of the ideas behind either what
> you're discussing here or GGI, but the fact is this has all been hashed
> out, and it went nowhere, since Linus wouldn't permit the kernel-side code
> in the mainline Linux kernel anyway.

That was more of a misunderstanding on both parties there and less to do with 
the engineering involved.  The kernel crowd heard graphics in the kernel 
(Which is the source of a lot of MS' woes with Windows, IMNSHO) when the GGI 
people were talking about a much more sophisticated input abstraction and 
mostly a protection scheme to shield the OS from stray gui apps so the box 
wouldn't lock up like it does when X goes errant.  The GGI team heard "NO 
WAY!" from the kernel crowd but didn't seek the why and said "We'll show 
you..."  And there you are.

Right now, we've the pieces of most of what the GGI team sought out to do in 
the kernel.  The accelerated FB does most of what the gui portions of the KGI 
they were looking to implement.  And the enhanced console work in progress 
appears to hail from the input system from the KGI.  We're actually really 
close to what the GGI people were asking for- without it being named GGI/KGI.

-- 
Frank Earl