I'm sorry to you both, but your both wrong. GGI isn't the only way it
should be done, and neither is X. Dismissing one, or the other out of
hand is just small mindedness.
I like X (much better than anything MS have come up with), but I'd also like
Linux to be more graceful about failing, eg, I keep having to reboot my
box because I can't see what I'm doing, as a text mode <-> graphic mode
switch just failed.
GGI would handle such problems (and not just that ;), by knowing what
the state the video card is, and how to get it back to a sane state,
and it shouldn't add much (if anything) to the kernel due to the design (a
generic module, a video card specific module, and the rest in user space
libs). Even though the details are still unresolved, like the various
/dev files names, and what they should do exactly, Ok, not small things,
but not the basic ideas either.
Bryn
--
PGP key pass phrase forgotten, \ Overload -- core meltdown sequence
again :( | initiated.
/ This space is intentionally left
| blank, apart from this text ;-)
\____________________________________