From: Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:41:22 +0200 (CEST)

Re: kgi vs. fbcon

On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> It is obvious that fbcon was created mainly to do one thing, and do it good. 
> That is a noble cause, and they did it good. The thing they wanted was to be 

Thanks a lot!

> able to get a CONSOLE running on a framebuffer device. The problem is, that is 
> not exactly what we (the ggi project) wanted. We wanted a nice, safe way for 
> ANY program to access a graphics card from userspace. The secondary effects of 
> fbcon, the exporting of the framebuffer to userspace, is of a more limited 
> kind than what we were working on.
> 
> Here are some pro's and con's for kgi and fbcon: 

I do not intend to comment a lot on this, but please keep in mind what you
wrote above: fbcon had to solve the graphics console problem!

Issues like real multihead (multiple input devices) are something completely
different.

I think that was one of the major reasons why GGI wasn't accepted in the
standard kernel yet: replacing too many subsystems at once doesn't work with
Linus. You have to conquer him (very small) piece by piece.

Greetings,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven                     Geert.Uytterhoeven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Wavelets, Linux/{m68k~Amiga,PPC~CHRP}  http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~geert/
Department of Computer Science -- Katholieke Universiteit Leuven -- Belgium