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]