Re: [MiNT] Shutdown() discussion

[Petr Stehlik <joy@sophics.cz>]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 03:48, Konrad Kokoszkiewicz wrote:
> Great. But - what for? How many user programs will have to shutdown the
> system?

see my other reply.

> As for NF, you can answer that NF offers not only shutdown facilities, but
> also gives an access to the accelerated graphics card of the host machine
> etc. Question: why this way? Why such things are not done via VDI drivers?

See the other reply. I never suggested to use NF from applications
directly.

> As someone wrote here, you (Aranym developers) seem sometimes a bit too
> aggressive (see Mr. Jurik mails, the last one is purely sick). As if you
> accepted every voice of critics as an attack on the idea of Aranym

Feel free to point to certain people. Milan also didn't say "you MiNT
developers". Or even better, don't take word of one of the developers as
the official statement of the project. Simply said, ARAnyM (or its
spokesman) never wanted to sound aggressive (mainly because there is no
such spokesman :).

Though I do admit that for example I myself may use a more sound words
like "aranym or death" sometime simply because I am getting tired by
explaining basic things over and over.

> BUT the idea of using Cookie Jar as a way to
> use it is completely broken. It is, apart from anything else, yet another
> misuse of the Cookie Jar, btw.

We tried hard to come up with something better but we didn't succeed.
Sorry. The current TOS software base use certain ways and we simply used
it similarly. For plain old TOS it should be forgivable, I hope. For
MiNT I proposed kernel/library wrappers.

> > And BTW, I'd like to see the memory virtualization much sooner than in
> > two three years.
> 
> You can wait even two-three thousands of years, if you enforce a standard
> that conceptually breaks it.

Konrad, haven't you noticed that we don't enforce anything? We are just
proposing things and are discussing them. Besides that, I have expressed
my wish to see the virtualized memory as soon as possible - meaning that
we at ARAnyM are the LAST ONES that would be delaying or breaking the VM
implementation. In other words, if you came up with the VM
implementation today and said "hey, no cookies with pointers" ARAnyM
would have priority #1 to support the FreeMiNT 2.0 perfectly :)

Actually I believe the __NF cookie with pointers will never be available
under MiNT (as I suggested in another mail) so consider this problem
solved and feel free to commit the VM implementation to the freemint CVS
:)

Petr