Graphics Driver Frameworks and Security

[olafBuddenhagen at gmx.net]

Hi,

On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:06:46PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 12:26 +0200, olafBuddenhagen at gmx.net wrote: 

> > Also, as I already pointed out, there are people willing to do this
> > work, or at least there used to be -- most are scattered now, due to
> > the continued missing acceptance. The former KGI attempts did *not*
> > fail because of lack of people to do the work, but because of lack
> > of interest in the work they did.
> 
> I'm not buying that. What stopped them from making a proof-of-concept
> implementation?

Nothing! That's exactly my point: A proof-of-concept implementation of
KGI *does* exist -- only it's beeing ignored totally.

The existing implementation is pretty obsolete by now, and quite a pain
to get it working. (The FreeBSD variant is presently better than the
Linux one in most regards, though.) Nevertheless it does exist, and I
have a machine running XGGI on top of KGI. (There is at least one person
on this list who can confirm having seen it. In fact, if *any* interest
had existed, I would have presented it at FOSDEM.)

I readily admit that the existing implementation is not very useful by
today's standards without some major improvements. But that's not the
point. The point is that people *did* take the trouble to implement it,
but nobody cared :-(

I'm not saying this is necessarily the X group's fault. Maybe it's the
GGI group that failed to communicate it properly. Which is why I'm
trying to get some better communication going. (Although probably I'm
not exactly the best person for this, considering the quality of my
communication skills, but well...)

> > Unless we can expect at least some support among X developers, there
> > is no point in even starting to write more code. And the nearly zero
> > resonance my previous posting(s) on that topic received, isn't
> > exactly encouraging :-(
> 
> I don't understand what kind of support you're looking for. Don't pull
> a Jon Smirl and expect everybody to suddenly drop what they're doing
> and focus exclusively on something radically new.

As I already pointed out, I'm not expecting that. All I wish for would
be to hear as much as "sounds interesting, show us the code", or
alternatively "we see the following problems with this approach: ..."

Anything giving hope that work done on GGI/KGI (or some similar system)
won't go to waste.

-antrik-