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

Re: clearing the screen -> framebuffer insanity

On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 20:31, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 11:54:52AM -0500, Jason Wojciechowski wrote:
> > Nathan E Norman (nnorman@incanus.net) wrote:
> > 
> > > Note that some people (like Linus) say that anyone who runs a
> > > framebuffer console is insane.
> > 
> > Why?
> Beats me ... STFW for the answer.
> I run a framebuffer; Sparc sucks without one.
> -- 
> Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:nnorman@incanus.net
>   If you don't know what your program is supposed to do, you'd
>   better not start writing it.
>           -- Edsger Dijkstra

Linus (from a quote and various other observations I've seen) considers
framebuffer on i386, umm, "less than ideal" (my words) as a general
configuration choice as, from my understanding of the words I've seen
and how it exists in the kernel, it is an incomplete and inconsistent
implementation on i386 - some graphics cards are not so well supported
as others, and simple SVGA functions are capable of the significant
range of framebuffer functions with vastly less overhead than running
the console strictly in graphics mode.

Framebuffer is needed on some systems that don't have text modes
comparable to the PC-style systems, but unless you *need* framebuffer
functions on an i386-style PC, you are not necessarily doing things the
most efficient way if you are doing most of your work on the console
strictly with text and no modified fonts, and as various graphics cards
only have *experimental* code implementing framebuffer, you are playing
with potential buggy code in the kernel for not necessarily any
performance benefit over a currently more reliable user-mode solution.
ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting
Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935
Email: kahnt@hosehead.dyndns.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: