From: teunis <teunis@computersupportcentre.com>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:17:55 -0700 (MST)

Re: Can I do that ?

On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Olivier Galibert wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 21, 1998 at 03:03:55PM -0700, Jon M. Taylor wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Marcus Sundberg wrote:
> > > I think what he meant is that a KGI driver should be accompanied by
> > > a special libbggi driver-library that is optimized for that driver.
> > 
> > 	IMHO this is a bad idea.  LibGGI is NOT the only userspace
> > library/platform which can have KGI-using driver-libraries.  Suppose
> > someday XGGI, Mesa, Berlin, DirectX, LibGGI2D, LibGGI3D, LibGWT and God
> > only knows how many more have their own specialized driver-libs.  Should
> > we include *all* of them with the KGI drivers?  And there is another
> > issue, too.  If we ever expect to get into the kernel, we can't have KGI
> > drivers dragging around userspace code.  I guarantee you Linus won't
> > accept that.  Package the driver-libs with the userspace code that uses
> > them.
> 
> When is the lastest time you used syscall()  directly instead of going
> thru the libc?
> 
> libggi/ggi2d/ggi3d are the  equivalent of the  libc.   They present to
> mere mortals   (i.e.   higher  level  libraries  or  applications) the
> semantics the kernel interface gives.  XGGI, Mesa, Berlin, DirectX and
> GWT[1] should *never*  *ever* go to  the KGI driver directly, for  the
> same reason than programs and libraries use open() and not syscall(5).

[clip]
> 
> [1]  Is  there any  hardware out  there  that  provides functionnality
> implemented in gwt?

AFAIK - Sun microsystems hardware (some), SGI hardware (sometimes).
	S3 cards support two windows but that's different afaik...

the AFAIK is because I have -no- way of finding out.  I'm going from info
scammed from previous discussions of same on linux-kernel and the GGI
list...

G'day, eh? :)
	- Teunis