[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is Framebuffer needed?

On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 11:45:41PM -0500, dman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 10:44:52AM -0500, John Kuhn wrote:
> | On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 08:36:14PM -0600, Lance Hoffmeyer wrote:
> | > In trying to optimize my Voodoo 3500 with mplayer I compiled my kernel
> | > 2.4.17 with framebuffer support.  Is this necessary, or what advantages
> | > do framebuffers have?  In the docs it seems that fb's simply allow for
> | > similar config's on different architechures.  Therefore, if one is 
> | > running an Intel machine then it doesn't seem like framebuffers have
> | > any added advantage.  Is this correct?
> | 
> | Here is a quote from Linus himself on this issue:
> | 
> |    "No sane person should use frame buffers if they have the choice."
> I'd like to know why.  I'm using framebuffer on both machines I manage
> and it is really nice -- no mucking with X config and awesome screen
> real-estate in console mode.

More code in the kernel, and much less mature code at that, means less
stability.  When a non-fb X server locks up, you don't lose everything

I don't use console mode much, and the X config is not significantly
simpler with fb support, so for me the disadvantages outweigh the
advantages.  In other circumstances, reasonable people might conclude
the opposite.

Eric C. Cooper          e c c @ c m u . e d u

Reply to: