Index:
[thread]
[date]
[subject]
[author]
From: Morten Rolland <Morten.Rolland@asker.mail.telia.com>
To : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 18:49:18 +0000
Re: opinion of GGI
Hello,
> > I really don't want to work hard on something and have the big companies
> > I hate most make money of it.
>
> This is the reason the KGI drivers are not in the kernel.
Really? Is this the *only* reason? I always thought there
was more to it than this -- at least it seemed to be once.
If I understand you correctly, the reason for not having
KGI drivers in the kernel is:
* In order to have KGI-drivers in the kernel, there must
be a flexible framework to support them, that could also
be used to load binary drivers (which is unwanted).
But if this is correct, how about KGIcon? It can be loaded
as a module with no previous patching of the kernel, no?
If this is the case, it seems to me like the module-concept
is heading in the wrong direction.
Regards,
Morten Rolland
Index:
[thread]
[date]
[subject]
[author]