KDBUS Won't Be Pushed Until The Linux 4.3 Kernel

[duby229]

Yes, I am aware of your opinion. Did you have something new to add?

No not really, it wouldn't be constructive. I was only pointing out the mans implication that you clearly missed.

[RahulSundaram]

No not really, it wouldn't be constructive. I was only pointing out the mans implication that you clearly missed.

Not sure what you believe I missed. You haven't really explicitly said anything yet.

[duby229]

Not sure what you believe I missed. You haven't really explicitly said anything yet.

It's all right there in the thread... I guess I have to point it out?

Well yes but there was broad consensus that sysvinit just didn't cut it anymore. There was debates on which alternative to sysvinit was better and for a while it looked like upstart might be the natural convergence point but the CLA was a stickler. In any case, the debate is over as far as major distributions are concerned.

OK so there we have it...there's always that debate on which is the better init system

Reread what was said and think about the implication....

Right. sysvinit worked so well that major distributions had already moved away from it to upstart (Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSUSE, RHEL, SUSE etc) or openrc (Gentoo) or something else before systemd project was even announced.

I'm pretty sure the implication is, that's terribly unfortunate.... (horribly so)

This is my explicit interpretation. Maybe I could of left terribly and horribly out, but regardless the implication is clear. (In other words I could have said, the implication is that's unfortunately so.)

[RahulSundaram]

This is my explicit interpretation. Maybe I could of left terribly and horribly out, but regardless the implication is clear. (In other words I could have said, the implication is that's unfortunately so.)

All you have so far said is that you find it unfortunate and that by itself doesn't mean much to anyone else. Why do you think I missed any implications?

[duby229]

All you have so far said is that you find it unfortunate and that by itself doesn't mean much to anyone else. Why do you think I missed any implications?

If you still don't get it then it's obviously by choice. There is no way to have a constructive conversation when one side refuses to acknowledge the other.

[RahulSundaram]

If you still don't get it then it's obviously by choice. There is no way to have a constructive conversation when one side refuses to acknowledge the other.

I have acknowledged that you find it unfortunate. Besides that, you have refused to say anything further for me to acknowledge. If you have something else to add, feel free to say so.

[psychoticmeow]

I have acknowledged that you find it unfortunate. Besides that, you have refused to say anything further for me to acknowledge. If you have something else to add, feel free to say so.

He did the same thing in one of the other threads, he's just wasting our time.

[duby229]

He did the same thing in one of the other threads, he's just wasting our time.

If you think you're wasting your time, that's something you do not me. My comment was intended to point out obvious implications. Even after several attempts he refuses to acknowledge them. What more can I do or say? Nothing really. The only thing that's gonna happen is we'll end up rehashing the same things we hashed and rehashed in other threads. There's no point in that.

[RahulSundaram]

If you think you're wasting your time, that's something you do not me. My comment was intended to point out obvious implications. Even after several attempts he refuses to acknowledge them. What more can I do or say? Nothing really. The only thing that's gonna happen is we'll end up rehashing the same things we hashed and rehashed in other threads. There's no point in that.

You claim the implications are obvious yet refuse to say what exactly you mean by that despite me asking you several times. Trying to claim that i refused to acknowledge something that has never been stated makes no sense since I cannot read your mind. So I will try again for the last time. What are the implications?

[Delgarde]

Why junk up something as important as the kernel with overly complicated IPC mechanisms when the old-style IPC (with some modernization) "just works".

Because the old style IPC *doesn't* "just work". That's why we have DBus, as the most commonly-used IPC mechanism on Linux systems. People keep saying "just use Plumber because it's simple and UNIXy" - but it's apparent that nobody actually wants "simple and UNIXy" because it doesn't do what they need.