> > Massive re-coding? Sounds like X just has to be protected from signal 9
> > just like init. That means you just need something to make X unique
> > to the kernel's signal "generator". Remember, you did not kill X, you
> > told the kernel to do it --- and it did.
>
> Or the kernel decided to blow it away, or I fed it stuff that crashed it
> solidly. There are many ways to upset the Xserver. (Thats not entirely
> an argument against any specific setup btw - no doubt kernel code would
> have some upset potential too)
is this a problem with the FB based X server too? If not then i dont see
the problem ... the FB console is always in a well-defined state. SAK
should work there too, just like on any console.
X is 'fast and a bit unsafe sometimes'. ('very unsafe' with Alan's
definition ;)
XFB is 'quite fast too and safe'. And people can start adding acceleration
(hard) to make it similarly fast, etc. But since we are not there yet, so
i think the flamewar is a bit too early :)
-- mingo
-
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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html