> Alan> I also mentioned GGI in my post, which has the advantage of
> Alan> people actually working on it (as well as intended stability
> Alan> and other useful thing). What's wrong with it?
>What's wrong with it is that (as last I heard) Linus isn't going to
>allow KGI to go into the kernel. Hence it would have no hope of
>becoming a replacement for SVGAlib.
There are two problems with putting KGI into the kernel:
a) It's not robust enough yet, and
b) There is disagreement as to the merit/quality of the architecture.
(Linus thinks that the GGI people are trying to push some dumb things
into the kernel; I prefer to stay out of that fight...)
Both problems are solvable. In particular, if the GGI coders "build a
mousetrap" that is so good that everyone starts lobbying to have this
*USEFUL CODE* in the kernel, then this is the point at which
disagreement may be (perhaps reluctantly) set aside.
In other words, if it gets really robust and really functional, then b)
may be overcome by GGI's other merits. It's Not There yet.
The Right Answer may be to also fix whatever is "broken" about the GGI
architecture; no doubt that is malleable enough that there will be some
changes made by the time the overall system starts to get robust enough
to consider moving it into "production" kernels.
We are MicroSoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
(Attributed to B.G., Gill Bates)