Re: [herbert@gondor.apana.org.au: Re: Bug#161931: kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 01:31:24PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Firstly I argue that VESA FB is only needed by a very small proportion
of our i386 users. This stems from the fact that the great majority of
I strongly object to this attitude. Shall we start argumenting for
What attitude? The sentence you quoted is just a premise for the
conclusion below.
removing m86k arch this way? At least many laptop users wish to have
vesafb since it is the only way to get shart and fullsized console
picture. I know enough users that wish a graphical console, and their
hardware is not supported by any other framebuffer driver (except of
vga16, of course).
Well the laptop users that you know seem to be rather different
from those that I know. The people who I know either use X or
are quite happy with text in vga16.
VGA16 as replacement is a joke - and you know this.
It's quite useable for laptops in text mode at least.
This in itself is not a reason to exlude VESA FB. In fact, I have no
qualms about including it as a once-off event. However, I'm excluding
it as a matter of principle. There is a number of other device drivers
in the kernel which have not be modularised. They're similar to VESA FB
Examples please. Good examples.
arpd, sch_atm, lp_console, nfs_root, ...
You have already began to do so with much larger pieces of code, ie.
quota support. Remember, we are talking about support for a hardware
Well It's my job as the maintainer to make such decisions. I have
decided that quota is of general interest and irreplaceble while
vesafb is not.
This is the main reason why I object to the inclusion of VESA FB in
its current non-modularised form. There are other reasons well. For
instance, I would like to distribute fbcon in a modularised form. Having
VESA FB compiled in would remove that flexibility that we would have
otherwise.
Who exactly needs this flexibility? Your kernel packages are for
_users_.
The flexibility to modularise fbcon. You may wish to use an alternative
implementation for instance.
BTW, there is absolutely no reason why the VESA FB driver cannot
be modularised. The switching of video mode occurs independently
As said, it is said to be not trivial.
I certainly see no obvious stumbling block. Unfortunately I have so
many things to do and the fact that you keep bitching certainly isn't
a great motivating factor.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmVHI~} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Re: [herbert@gondor.apana.org.au: Re: Bug#161931: kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]
#include hallo.h * Herbert Xu [Fri, Oct 25 2002, 10:00:20PM]: Firstly I argue that VESA FB is only needed by a very small proportion of our i386 users. This stems from the fact that the great majority of I strongly object to this attitude. Shall we start argumenting for What attitude? The sentence you quoted is just a premise for the conclusion below. Exactly, you argument with minority not knowing the numbers. Well the laptop users that you know seem to be rather different from those that I know. The people who I know either use X or are quite happy with text in vga16. VGA16 as replacement is a joke - and you know this. It's quite useable for laptops in text mode at least. Useable - sure, but how? Sticked to 640x480, too large font, a nightmare for console user. And it is not sharpen on LCD monitors while you can set a vesafb resolution that you need. it as a matter of principle. There is a number of other device drivers in the kernel which have not be modularised. They're similar to VESA FB Examples please. Good examples. arpd, sch_atm, lp_console, nfs_root, ... As said, _good_ examples. How many users need that features? Note, am talking about masses of home and soho systems, not terminal servers. You have already began to do so with much larger pieces of code, ie. quota support. Remember, we are talking about support for a hardware Well It's my job as the maintainer to make such decisions. I have decided that quota is of general interest and irreplaceble while vesafb is not. I do not know any single user that uses quota on the personal box, only few servers. Who exactly needs this flexibility? Your kernel packages are for _users_. The flexibility to modularise fbcon. You may wish to use an alternative implementation for instance. As said, WHO needs it? As said, it is said to be not trivial. I certainly see no obvious stumbling block. Unfortunately I have so many things to do and the fact that you keep bitching certainly isn't a great motivating factor. Sure. But I am not the first and not the last person bitching about your bullheaded decisions. EOD. Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- weasel for i in *; do if ( cat $i | grep -q hallo ); then echo $i; fi; done [einen Tag später] -:- Topic (#debian.de): changed by _shorty_: Award fuer useless use of cat an Weasel verliehen. :)
Re: [herbert@gondor.apana.org.au: Re: Bug#161931: kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]
Herbert Xu writes (Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Bug#161931: kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]): ... Who is supposed to make these decisions about how many people are interested? Should I ask you every time this comes up? If you end up getting into a serious enough dispute about it, yes. That's what we're here for. To sum up I'm rather worried if the basis of your decision is purely on the fact that you are satisfied that enough people are interested in VESA fb. It seems to me that the question is precisely whether enough people are interested in VESA fb. Ian.
Re: [herbert@gondor.apana.org.au: Re: Bug#161931: kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 11:11:42PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Herbert Xu writes (Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Bug#161931:
kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]):
...
Who is supposed to make these decisions about how many people are
interested? Should I ask you every time this comes up?
If you end up getting into a serious enough dispute about it, yes.
That's what we're here for.
OK, in that case I shall await your decision and implement it
accordingly.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmVHI~} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
