On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, James Sutherland wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Jun 2000, Anthony Barbachan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> And by default it would be white text on a blue background...
>> >>
>> >> Sound familiar? :-)
>> >>
>> >
>> >And this is relevent because? Does this mean we shouldn't have a graphical
>> >user interface as well? :-) Well I perfer text mode anyway so thats ok
>> >with me. Besides is there another feasable way to prompt a user for action
>> >from the kernel? Furthermore as it stands right now if I am in X Windows I
>> >will not see and kernel error messages, this would work around that. I
>> >would say this much, if implemented it should be optional.
>>
>> This has been covered several times:
>> 1. the kernel doesn't know who to contact.
>> 2. No one may be logged in
>> 3. the console may not be logged in, but other users are logged in over the net
>> 4. If a daemon recieves the message, who gets the output?
>> 5. root doesn't have access to the X server
>> 6. the person logged in (using X) may not be authorized to answer.
>
>If this would really be a useful feature, probably the best approach is
>for the user interface handling the drive to take care of it?
>(KDE/Gnome/whatever could just provide a graphical mtools frontend; if the
>disk is removed inappropriately, they'll get an error, which they can take
>care of by shouting at the user or whatever.)
>
>Kernel-side, we don't really know enough about what is going on - whose
>disk it is, where to send the message, etc.
THAT sounds best of all, even better than any of my suggestions.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse I Pollard, II Email: pollard@cats-chateau.netAny opinions expressed are solely my own.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:23 EST