If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
We can use dbus today. If kernel bus implementation is successful it shouldn't be any problem with a port to it when the dbus inteface is done.
The only good thing about dbus is the precedent in introducing other generic client ipc (other than pipes and sockets). Maybe now plumber will get ported and we can finally have small and sane programs again.
Because everyone and their mother is already using dbus. You really expect everyone to just drop it and switch to something else? Do you have any idea how many applications would have to be reprogrammed? What advantage would there be, anyway?
Somehow I doubt that the people who hate the idea of another daemon are going to be happy running an entire file server just to get IPC.
Systemd requiring a Desktop Bus is an example of things gone horribly wrong. Init! Requiring another daemon!
D-Bus was never really called a "desktop bus" and many server components including print servers like cups and dns resolvers like bind have d-bus support these days. In either case, systemd doesn't require D-Bus the daemon to be running. It uses libdbus, the library. These are not the same thing although it is a common source of confusion for end users apparently.