From: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Subject: Re: replacing X Window System !
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 14:19:55 +0300
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <200605200733.08757.a1426z@gawab.com> <20060520102526.GH10077@stusta.de>
In-Reply-To: <20060520102526.GH10077@stusta.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="windows-1256"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200605201419.55428.a1426z@gawab.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1188
Lines: 32

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 07:33:08AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Not that I would agree with the in-Kernel X idea per se, but it does
> > raise the issue of a stable API once more, as it would allow more
> > freedom to create a module against a version line w/o fear of being
> > rejected.
>
> It does not raise the issue of a stable kernel API:
>
> The solution is to work on getting the module included into the kernel.
> All problems with changing kernel APIs vanish as soon as your module is
> included. This is independent from what the module in question is doing.

Yes, but the question is:
	What's the trick to get the module into the kernel?

It seems that we are currently under the mercy of the few, who have the power 
to control this.  And forking isn't really a solution.

With a stable API, I can just implement whatever w/o caring whether it is 
included into the kernel.  Now that's freedom!

Thanks!

--
Al

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/