Re: What Linux lacks : better in-kernel user interface

From: Saturday7 (u9526_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/04/04 

Date: 3 Sep 2004 16:52:37 -0700

Todd Knarr <tknarr@silverglass.org> wrote in message

> 1) It was a system stability hazard. SVGAlib bugs tended to bring the
> entire console down hard, and the simple direct-access design meant it
> was easy for a program to do something not exactly right and put the
> hardware into an unrecoverable state even without any bugs in SVGAlib.

I certainly think that in-kernel code would have to be bullet-proof
and would not make it into a 'stable' kernel for some time. However
in the meantime, I'd be using it ...and debugging it.

> 2) The infrastructure code needed, like font rendering, utility routines
> to do things like dialog boxes, handling all the ways the different
> video cards organized pixels, did 3D rendering, etc. etc., meant that by
> the time you added in all the additional program support libraries and
> code you had a collection just about as complicated as an X server plus
> widget set.

Keep in mind that I am ideologically opposed to bloat. I would not
advocate for fancy features ever. I have nothing but disdain for
small-w "windows"...although panes (not pains) I do like.

To express this in 5-7-5 format:

bloat slows the system
commandline user craves more
in-kernel graphics