| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Kernel API issuesKernel API issuesPosted Jan 17, 2004 4:38 UTC (Sat) by proski (subscriber, #104)In reply to: Linux breaks desktop barrier in 2004: Torvalds (LinuxWorld.com.au) by mmarq Parent article: Linux breaks desktop barrier in 2004: Torvalds (LinuxWorld.com.au) As I understand it, video cards are much more sophisticated devices than audio cards. It's much harder to come with a kernel API that would allow access to most functions of several different video cards. It would be too complex for the kernel and prone to security issues. For instance, if video cards had acceleration for fonts (maybe some cards have it already), would you move font support to the kernel?
(Log in to post comments)
Kernel API issues Posted Jan 17, 2004 16:17 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] But that for the sake of Linux and Open-Spouce is the all point...Open-Source needs a Advance (..) Arquitecture for Video and or graphics, if he wants not to be hostage of DRM strict schemes, and in consequence of M$... As to specfications, IMHO, would be nice to ear what GPU manufactors have to say,..., in Ottawa Symposium i supose...
Kernel API issues Posted Jan 17, 2004 16:19 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "if he wants not to be hostage of DRM strict schemes"Here i mean Digital Rights Management.
Kernel API issues Posted Jan 22, 2004 13:22 UTC (Thu) by ortalo (subscriber, #4654) [Link] IMHO: of course not! The problem is not to decide if all graphic board features should be implemented in the kernel. That would be stupid of course. But, let me reverse the question: do you think it is reasonable that graphics-related hardware be the only type of hardware that "should" be directly controlled by a user space program like X11? I do not find this reasonable either. What I'd like to see is some simple and efficient way of controlling access to graphics hardware in the kernel. If you look at KGI you'll see that the kernel driver does not export so many things.
|
|||||||||||