As for what it adds, it's enhanced stability and no more resource conflicts. As I said on the blog there, the current system is much like the Real Mode of CPUs, it's a horrible idea based on trust that all the software has no bugs and is written sanely. The new system is like Protected Mode, making sure that even if a program misbehaves/malfunctions, it won't be able to deadlock the whole PC. In addition, the new system does away with artificial limitations, which allows such things as multiple sessions on a single seat (currently that's only possible if there is only a single seat).
Also, VTs have no reason to be in the kernel, because as the name implies, they're virtual. They're not actual devices. They ought to be created and deleted by the userland.
Last edited by GreatEmerald; 08-26-2013 at 12:00 PM.
This sounds like a solution in search of a problem and users that actually care. On the other hand, it could break things horribly especially for those failsafe situations.
it sounds like yet another example for of change for it's own sake not driven by any actual end user requirements that is actually being done DESPITE end user objections.
It seems like a perfect microsoftism.
Lets not mess with the TTY's they are STILL NEEDED for when things go wrong.
Start messing with the console, and you could end up, like Windows, with no basic, self-reliant recovery options.
With systemd, upstart and company and all the other rubbish we are going towards a messy opaque system much like windows. I do not like this trend.
This wannabe Lennart Poettering trying to make the console depend on layers of complexity in user space, yeah that'll all be there when things go south.... the console is there for emergencies, needs to depend on as little as possible.
The very fact that you say "Messy opaque system much like windows" and "complexity in userspace" tells EVERYONE on these boards that you don't actually know what you're talking about and have only heard information from equally biased third parties, who probably selectively pulled out quotes to fit their own bias. Either you're trolling on purpose-- in which case you'll be reported, or you'll showing your ignorance for everyone to see and only embarrassing yourself. I its the latter I HIGHLY suggest you start reading code and documentation FOR YOURSELF and TALK to the developers YOURSELF and you'll realize how much of a mess we are in NOW and these "complexities" you call them are the result because we half-assed systems for so long, called them "good enough" and convinced ourselves they were "good enough" because the alternative was facing how much of a piss-poor position we were actually in.
VTs are as old and as difficult to deal with as the X server due to them not being designed to do anything like what they're asked to do today.Originally Posted by curagaNo, it's not. If you read the blog posts, the work to make it do its job is just now being done. So why would any existing distro deploy it, when it doesn't do its job fully yet? It may be in the development Ubuntu version, but not in any released one.And the "needless daemon" is already running on most Linux distributions, including Ubuntu, and its design fits this purpose pretty much exactly.
which allows such things as multiple sessions on a single seat (currently that's only possible if there is only a single seat).Originally Posted by curagaThey have every reason to be in the kernel, which is why they are. The kernel manages the display, the kernel manages the input. It manages the processes that run on that VT. Now, can you make an argument, when given all that, that the combination of those three should also not be in the same place?Also, VTs have no reason to be in the kernel, because as the name implies, they're virtual. They're not actual devices. They ought to be created and deleted by the userland.