Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 109

Thread: A Run Down Of VT Switching On Linux

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,373

    Default A Run Down Of VT Switching On Linux

    Phoronix: A Run Down Of VT Switching On Linux

    David Herrmann, the student developer working on DRM Render Nodes this summer and has been a longtime proponent of killing the Linux kernel console, has written at length about VT (virtual terminal) switching on Linux systems...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ0NDg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,995

    Default

    They are papering over kernel problems in userspace, making a new (dbus-using, no less, eww) daemon necessary (logind).

    Revoke() belongs in kernel, an extra daemon is just pure unnecessary overhead.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    They are papering over kernel problems in userspace, making a new (dbus-using, no less, eww) daemon necessary (logind).

    Revoke() belongs in kernel, an extra daemon is just pure unnecessary overhead.
    A pure revoke() system-call doesn't help. In fact, the revoke() syscall would be papering over kernel problems. If you have better ideas than the one proposed, please let us know. But nobody so far could come up with one. Besides, I like the logind idea, so why exactly do you not like it?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Seattle, WA, USA
    Posts
    1

    Default

    While keeping in mind that these concepts we've been using for years really are ridiculously old, I'm particularly excited about moving VT switching to userspace. In doing so, you have to accept a few compromises. Notably, you have to use your wholly reviled systemd-logind system. (Why do people continue to hate on systemd? I've been using it preferentially since 198, and I actually dig it)

    Now, unless someone wants to get off their fucking ass and make a more-suitable solution in the kernel, I think people who want to cry and shit themselves over the use of dbus and systemd-logind should take the initiative to create a more complete and compliant system. Pretty please. Our community should use all the competition it can get to make the best tools for Linux, because that's what makes Linux so damn awesome.

    I love the idea, dvdhrm. Run with it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,259

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Now here's something interesting to read.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    ?? Second definition fits just fine

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    ?? Second definition fits just fine
    It's one word...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    My question is, will this be a requirement for running the linux kernel? If it's optional and I can still run the linux kernel and switch terminals without it, then I'm fine with it. If it's a requirement then I'm not fine with it. My problem with LP and his squad of zealots is that they seem to think that forcing their crap on everybody else is a kick. They seem to get enjoyment out of watching everybody else squirm.

    The reason why I absolutely refuse to install systemd or any of it's dependencies on my computer is because of that dev teams being oblivious to it's bugs. The fact is that it's buggy garbage, but the very second that is mentioned the first thing they do is blame it on anything else. They don't fix the bugs and then accuse something else as being responsible. That behavior will never be acceptable to me.
    Last edited by duby229; 08-25-2013 at 03:32 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    My question is, will this be a requirement for running the linux kernel? If it's optional and I can still run the linux kernel and switch terminals without it, then I'm fine with it. If it's a requirement then I'm not fine with it. My problem with LP and his squad of zealots is that they seem to think that forcing their crap on everybody else is a kick. They seem to get enjoyment out of watching everybody else squirm.

    The reason why I absolutely refuse to install systemd or any of it's dependencies on my computer is because of that dev teams being oblivious to it's bugs. The fact is that it's buggy garbage, but the very second that is mentioned the first thing they do is blame it on anything else. They don't fix the bugs and then accuse something else as being responsible. That behavior will never be acceptable to me.
    Duby... Ripping out the VT subsystem isn't being done by Lennart. Moving the VT's from kernelspace to userspace is about removing hacky, inefficient, complicated spaghetti code in the kernel.

    As far as systemd... ALL software has bugs, systemd is no different. And I can say from experience that if there is a real bug in systemd or logind, Lennart is quick to respond to bug reports-- having reported and/or helped test a few my self. If something is systemd's fault, it gets fixed. However, systemd, and everything associated with it under the systemd umbrella name, is EXTREMELY well documented and if something is trying to do things incorrectly then yes I would say that the bugs are in THAT program, not systemd.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •