From: Christoph Egger <Christoph_Egger@t-online.de>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 21:45:14 +0200 (MEST)

Re: opinion of GGI

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.
> 
> 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).
> 
> 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 ???

> 
> Regards,
> Morten Rolland
> 

Christoph Egger
E-Mail: Christoph_Egger@t-online.de