Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 19:20:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 19:20:04 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:23056 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 19:19:55 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 16:19:15 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Timothy Covell cc: Andrew Morton , , Linux Frame Buffer Device Development , Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [patch] Re: Framebuffer...Why oh Why??? In-Reply-To: <200112302117.fBULHISr011887@svr3.applink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Timothy Covell wrote: > > When X11 locks up, I can still kill it and my box lives. When > framebuffers crash, their is no recovery save rebooting. Back in 1995 > I thought that linux VTs and X11 implemenation blew Solaris out of the > water, and now we want throw away our progress? I'm still astounded > by the whole "oooh I can see a penquin while I boot-up" thing? > Granted, frame buffers have usage in embedded systems, but do they > really have to be so deeply integrated?? They aren't. No sane person should use frame buffers if they have the choice. Like your mama told you: "Just say no". Use text-mode and X11, and be happy. Some people don't have the choice, of course. Linus - 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/