Re: The whole GGI/KGI spat

"Brian S. Julin" <[email protected]> wrote:

> First I'd like to ask folks to please calm down and concentrate on
> finding points of unity that everyone can agree on.  

The first thing I would say is that I don't believe any of the 
discussions about GGI and XFree86 have been flames at all. Some folks 
have said that GGI should be used as a new device driver model for 
XFree86, and others responded and simply said 'go ahead and write an 
XFree86 loadable module based on GGI'. 

The XFree86 group are not going to ditch the existing device driver model 
(and more importantly all their functional drivers) unless there is a 
compelling reason to do so. Hence a GGI based loadable module fits nicely 
into this scenario since it can be used to 'extend' the device support 
for XFree86 rather than trying to replace it.

> Also I don't think there are many here that do not realize that in
> order to milk hardware for what it is worth, X needs much more
> thorough kernel-space support than currently provided by DRI. 

That is an interesting comment you make, and one that I don't quite 
understand. What exactly do you feel needs to be done better in the 
kernel space in order to be able to 'milk hardware for what it is worth'? 
I don't see any serious performance issues with the current way that 
XFree86 works (and the DRI works), but I am curious to hear your ideas 
about how it can be made better.

Regards,

---
Kendall Bennett
Chief Executive Officer
SciTech Software, Inc.
Phone: (530) 894 8400
http://www.scitechsoft.com

~ SciTech SNAP - The future of device driver technology! ~