Re: VT console need rewrite

[Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:20:07AM +0800, Microcai wrote:
> 
> > Another possible model: split the current system in 2, so there's a
> > bytestream handler, and a vt-legacy module. Then use the interface
> > between bytestream/legacy as an interface for future vt-kernel and
> > vt-user modules.
> 
> this may cause early printk stop working. 

Let's start by asking a much more fundamental question; what the heck
are your goals?

If the main goal of the console is emergency debugging when the system
is in a very bad state (i.e., trashed initrd, etc.) do we really even
need Unicode support?

How many people do regular login, development, reading e-mail, etc.,
on the console?  Very few!  If the answer is because you hate X, as
you've already pointed out, we already have fbterm.  Where is it
written that we need to have a full unicode-capable console system?
Why is this so important; especially if doing this is going to be very
difficult, and risks breaking lots of stuff if we try to mess with it?

	       	     	      	      - Ted