On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 the mental interface of
Mark L. Kahnt told:
> 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
stupid!
>
> 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.
I am running framebuffer at vt's since 2 years now on i386 without
problems. I.e to read mails with mutt on a vt is quite more comfortable
to read and to handle as on a X-Window. I view pictures and pdf`s
with fbi (fbgs), my vt's are running with fbgetty. Never had any
problems, so why it is insane?
Never found a bug in the *experimental* drivers.
Elimar
--
.~.
/V\ L I N U X
/( )\ >Phear the Penguin<
^^-^^
Attachment:
pgp9bbKwNn2ng.pgp
Description: PGP signature