Re: XFree86 4.0.1 works!
Robert Bihlmeyer <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I don't quite agree here. I think the kernel should be responsible for
> cleaning up after processes. We don't rely on processes closing all
> their files and freeing all their memory, either. So, even if X
> crashes hard, the console should restore to the state it was before.
To get this right, one have to use some kind of frame buffer device
instead of having the X server bang directly on the hardware. All
Unices I've heard of have got this for ages, except Linux on PC
hardware (not sure about the *bsd:s on PC hardware, though).
I believe things are getting better, but I haven't followed the
linux framebuffer stuff and kgi closely enough to know.
> The Hurd IMHO has a better position than monolithic kernels in this
> respect, I think.
You have the choice of putting the hardware-banging code into the
kernel (like in those Linuxes that have /dev/fb), or putting it in
some user-level process/translator. If you choose the second
alternative, you still won't have much help from the kernel if the
user-space program crashes, you have just moved the problem from the X
server to some other user-level program. But at least it should make
it easier to have X cooperate with the rest of the system.