> On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
> > This is exactly the problem with so much of the GGI project work,
> > they've duplicated the console code, the input handler code in
> > gpm and the frame buffer code, and they've done it without as much
> > thought for platforms and consideration and design as existing code.
>
> The current implementation may be flawed but the overall goal is correct.
> Despite its current problems, GGI really is the right thing to do. There
> are some sharp people in the GGI group and I know eventually theyll get it
> right.
And even if we should not, let's assume that our designs are flawed, then
that could be corrected after including it in the main kernel. We are not
very many in the project that are active developers with enough knowledge
to work on drivers, kernel etc. But we use our ideas, and we try to do our
best.
If GGI was to be included into 2.3.0, ok, if our designs are flawed it
might generate some trouble, but if our goal is correct, then the larger
amount of coders on linux-kernel should be able to help us sort it out.
Basicly it's a win-win. We need to have it stable and at least fairly good
before Linus will even consider including us in the kernel, and that's ok,
it's as should be. But what if what we have done is great? Then that would
be a win for linux. Should it just be ok, then it will turn into great
over time, and that would still be a win.
Most people here are complaining that:
1. We aren't needed.
Well, I can't say much about that, but GGI should be made a compile time
option, and those who don't want it shouldn't enable it.
2. We are touching things we shouldn't
Yes and no. We are touching things that we _have_ to touch, but since both
the mainstream kernel and our patch are being developed alongside
eachother there is bound to be such problems. Someone makes an update to
the keyboard input system, but what if we have already made such an update
for ourselfes?
Should this one be better, then we will eventually sync with the
mainstream kernel and use that one. Should we feel that our is better for
what we want to do, then we will use ours, and let such things sort
themselfes out when including GGI into the kernel.
We are both highly moving targets, and keeping the mainstream kernel as
much into sync with GGI as possible is almost impossible, because if we
did we would have to spend most of our time doing that. And why? Because
here at the linux-kernel nobody has to care what we have done, and can
change the system pretty much anyhow you like. We don't have that option
in GGI.
We will sort these things out, but we need some time to do it. Just wait
until _we_ are ready, and you will see something that rocks.
3. We are going about it the wrong way?
Ok, so perhaps our design is way to much flawed (we don't think so, but
let's assume it). So what? Every coder can try it their own way, and
considering the development model of the linux-kernel the best way will
win. We assumes, and has to assume, that that will be us.
Whenever a discussion like this comes up I usually point to the movie Star
Trek: First Contact. In it, there is a man named Zefram Cochran who says
(or actually will say), "Don't try to be a great man. Just be a man and
let history do it's own judgement". And we are doing that. We are not
trying to throw it down your throat. We do our work mostly in silence
(except when someone starts a discussion here for whatever reasons,
usually that they want to see GGI included into the kernel now, even we
ourselfes says that we aren't ready), but anyway, we work in silence,
believing that the linux community will make it's own judgement.
This was perhaps a bit a rant, but it's hard for me to describe what I am
feeling whenever GGI comes up as a subject here. People who attack us
mostly hasn't bothered to check our webpages to see what we are actually
doing (and ok, the www pages are currently a bit out of date, we are
working on that too). Those who have checked out our current state haven't
bothered to check the TODO list to see what we know is wrong and needs to
be fixed before we are ready, and hence flames us having done wrong in the
first attempt. Only a few has gone all the way and really understands us,
but the comments from those who does are really welcome. We do monitor
this list and forwards everything that is important to our own (and it is
done manually, so no loops from our side :) )
With the above I don't want to say that people are idiots for not
understanding us, or that they are lazy to make the try. Far from that.
But I say that the discussion we are holding right now is pointless. We
are being flamed and attacked on the reasons for what we are now. Not for
our goal, not for what we will be in the future. So please, let us drop
this discussion and not take it up again until we in the ggi project feel
that we are ready for being included into the main kernel.
Rant is still online I see, but I will end here, hoping that I have
managed to say what I meant.
-Stefan
stefan.mars@ggi-project.org
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Stefan Mars |Student, Applied physics & Electrical engineering |
| Bjoernkaerrsgatan 15B:30 |Linkoping Institute of Technology |
| S-584 36 Linkoping | |
| Sweden |Email: mars@lysator.liu.se Phone: +46 (0)13175384 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Maintainer of The THX Home Cinema Buyers Guide, located at |
| http://www.lysator.liu.se/%7Emars/thxguide.html |
\--------------------- PGP key available through finger ----------------------/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu