Didier Kryn <k...@in2p3.fr> wrote: > I guess this is exactly what "multi-seat" means: severall keyboards and > severall grapical cards connected to the same host. It certainly does not > include serial terminals. Serial terminal fall in the category "multi-user", > like ssh connections, not "multi-seat".
I disagree there. In the context of "graphical consoles" being discussed I see where you are coming from, but serial terminals are just a sub class of multi-seat - while the "multiple graphics card-keyboard-mouse" setup is another sub-set. The key difference is that there is a long history of multi-seat via serial (and more recently, network) terminals and (for example) the serial etc systems inherently support multi-seat. The way the problem is solved for serial terminals is simple - abstract the hardware into a stable device API, and run multiple instances of the "login" program (one per seat). "In theory" the same should be possible with the graphics-keybourd-mouse combo - EXCEPT that (AIUI) the software components involved were mostly written a) without that standard abstraction and b) without regard to the possibility of multiple instantiations. Just think how easy it musty have seemed at one point to just "intertwine" the software and hardware such that a single instance of "something" acted as the sole gatekeeper between the serial line and the machine - for a single seat. There'd then be discussions on how to work around that to enable multi-seat. As it happens, the serial line one was such a "no brainer" given how many different things used the serial lines - the solution we have must have seemed so obvious from the very beginning. Rob Owens <robowen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can say with authority that multiseat doesn't have any value *for me*. ... > But I have no idea what the situation is like for people in other parts of > the world, or for people in my part of the world with fewer financial > resources. And that, IMO is a key point. Accepting that different users have different needs - and what we perceive as "of no value" may be the primary use case for others. Unfortunately, too many people, especially those pushing some key software components seem to have lost sight of this and simply declare anything they aren't interested in as "of no value" - or worse, as "wrong". We all, myself included, need to remember that our use case is just that "OUR" use case. It's easy to dismiss opposing viewpoints as having no merit if they don't fit in with our needs/perceptions. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
