You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
seems like a nice idea - take advantage of the kernel framebuffer device to allow GUI environment - in kernel...
http://home.comcast.net/~plinius/fbui.html
http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/4109
Offline
Yeah, it seems like a good idea Since its within the kernel itself you do not need to bother about dl'ing other stuff. Of course, there would still be the issue about compatibility with programs(from a desktop pov).
Since this is not supposed to be used on the desktop, it seems like a pretty good thing. I'm sure if people were going to use it on embedded devices, they would create graphical programs for it.
Offline
why even bother?
I use either framebuffer OR x, not something in between.
To err is human... to really foul up requires the root password.
Offline
If I understand correctly, you are saying having the GUI built in (or at least the protocols, a la X, built in). I don't think this will ever happen. One of the main design principals of Linux was to NOT have the GUI included. It makes the kernal much more versatile and easier to maintain. Kernel devs don't want to have to code things that should not be in the kernel.
Offline
1st im not saying. i just posted the links... i myself think its a good idea for very basic terminals, and after posting the link i also visited http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9202043619.html which gives further information on this kind of projects. as far as it goes for "i don't think this will ever happen" - it is already happening... and as u read on the author webpage, he delibertly inserted it into the kernel to prevent bloating. wether i like it or not, is not the issue
Offline
having gui code in a kernel is baaaadddd!
look at windows 3.1 -> 98..
click the `X'... if( (int)(rand() / RAND_MAX) * 5) > 4) BANG.. blue screen..
Offline
I might be wrong, but i thought that 3.1 > 98 actually had the GUI outside kernel since it was based on DOS. NT4 &< on the other hand...
Offline
Pages: 1