> What is the difference between KGIcon and KGI, if there is one?
The KGI driver system itself is designed to be portable across platforms
(both hardware- and OS-wise). KGIcon is a wrapper around the KGI drivers
that will let them look like normal fbcon drivers for the Linux kernel
(hence the name).
KGI 0.0.9 - which is maintained by Steffen Seeger - is a massive intrusion
into the Linux console subsystem which sets quite some things right and thus
allows to use more features of modern graphics cards.
It will need some updating of the drivers, but we will try to merge kgicon
and KGI 0.0.9, so that you can use KGI drivers on both stock and patched
> How fits GGI Console (J.McMullan's EvStack?) in the architecture?
It was an alternate design for the Linux Console Input/Output subsystem which
relies heavily on a special form of message passing.
It is a very flexible approach designed for advanced needs like
multihead/multikeyboard/multi-whatever support and advanced input methods
like gesture recognition programs that kind of "translate" the events
produces by other inputs.
Unfortunately Jason doesn't have time to spend on it currently.
> I'm working at my theses at the University of Dresden and my task is
> to design a console system for the DROPS project
Feel free to take from the EvStack code. IMHO it's one of the simplest and
most transparent implementations for a Unix style console subsystem.
As it separates all components (input drivers, remapping [keyboard layout],
terminal-emulation [Key-ESC-Sequences], userspace-IO, terminal-emulation
[terminal control ESC sequences], virtual scroller, graphics subsystem), it
is very easy to write modules and maintain them.
Just start out with a naive implementation of all subsystems and then
> I'm just wondering if I could use the 'GGI Console' in a Linux-emulating
> (Microkernel-) Server. I think that is similar to the thing the HURD people
> want to do.
Sure. Feel free to take.
= Andreas Beck | Email : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =