Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't quite agree here. I think the kernel should be responsible for > cleaning up after processes. We don't rely on processes closing all > their files and freeing all their memory, either. So, even if X > crashes hard, the console should restore to the state it was before.
To get this right, one have to use some kind of frame buffer device instead of having the X server bang directly on the hardware. All Unices I've heard of have got this for ages, except Linux on PC hardware (not sure about the *bsd:s on PC hardware, though). I believe things are getting better, but I haven't followed the linux framebuffer stuff and kgi closely enough to know. > The Hurd IMHO has a better position than monolithic kernels in this > respect, I think. You have the choice of putting the hardware-banging code into the kernel (like in those Linuxes that have /dev/fb), or putting it in some user-level process/translator. If you choose the second alternative, you still won't have much help from the kernel if the user-space program crashes, you have just moved the problem from the X server to some other user-level program. But at least it should make it easier to have X cooperate with the rest of the system. /Niels
