From: James Simmons <jsimmons@edgeglobal.com>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 16:29:44 -0400 (EDT)

Re: opinion of GGI

On Sat, 8 May 1999, Christoph Egger wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, 8 May 1999, Morten Rolland wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > > > I really don't want to work hard on something and have the big companies
> > > > I hate most make money of it.
> > > 
> > > This is the reason the KGI drivers are not in the kernel.
> > 
> > Really?  Is this the *only* reason?  I always thought there
> > was more to it than this -- at least it seemed to be once.
> >

That and when they hear KGI they thing accels which is a big no no to
them.

 
> > If I understand you correctly, the reason for not having
> > KGI drivers in the kernel is:
> > 
> >   * In order to have KGI-drivers in the kernel, there must
> >     be a flexible framework to support them, that could also
> >     be used to load binary drivers (which is unwanted).
> > 

This is what they told me for why they wouldn't support UDI. Also the idea
of a standard not in their hands bothered them. They stated if their is a
mistake in the UDI standard then they can't change it because its not in
their hands. I feel this is part of the reason why. 

> > But if this is correct, how about KGIcon?  It can be loaded
> > as a module with no previous patching of the kernel, no?
> > 
> > If this is the case, it seems to me like the module-concept
> > is heading in the wrong direction.
> 
> Folks, what you are thinking about to ask Linus Torvalds or Alan Cox
> himself, how KGI _must_ what do and how the _design_ should be, to
> integrate KGI into the kernel ???

No. Right now the way its working a GGI console like system is begining to
evolve. So some form will come to be.   
 
> > Regards,
> > Morten Rolland
> > 
> 
> Christoph Egger
> E-Mail: Christoph_Egger@t-online.de
>