> Well .. Linux is stable but that depends on the point of view ..
> If i dont touch a Windows Box - if i dont work on it, its (i guess)
> stable and runs for a few weeks. Linux runs stable of course, if i dont
> use a GUI, but its impossible for me to work without one, because i cant
> monitor/control a couple of programs on a 25 line display or when i want
> to view a site with netscape (lynx is nice of course but sometimes i need
> the graphic) -> so because I have to use X, X is definitely not stable and
> Linux cant prevent X massing around with the graphic card, Linux (not the
> kernel - the whole system) is not a stable environment.
> .. giving a program full access to the graphic card.. thats like giving a
> program access to the whole harddisk and hoping that it knows how to
> handle the FS and how to avoid data losses..
> i think "we" should be open minded for new design steps .. at least the
> GGI could be included optional in the kernel..
Your reasons for wanting GGI in the kernel are valid reasons, but GGI is
not ready yet. GGI changes some core kernel functionality, so putting
it in the kernel now, even as an option, would cause lots of headaches
that would be better left to the next development kernel (2.3). I would
like to see GGI in the kernel as well, but the way I look at it is that
if it goes in now in an incomplete state, it will make a bad
impression. Linus has a 'wait and see' attitude about GGI, so they
don't really want to blow it by trying to integrate it too early. Just
my $0.02.
--Brian Gerst