Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDE, GNOME, Unity, Razor-Qt Developers Met Up

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    If it's not available there, then that's another good reason against it.
    This one is not the reason against it.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Teho View Post
      We should have kdbus ("kernel dbus") before the end of the year that makes it fast, lean and daemon-less.
      Perhaps. Basing current work on something that may or may not happen in the future is not smart.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by curaga View Post
        Perhaps. Basing current work on something that may or may not happen in the future is not smart.
        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.
        Last edited by Akka; 04-18-2013, 12:06 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Akka View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by curaga View Post
            It's a bloated, slow, and unnecessary daemon. My systems are usually dbus-less.
            That you do not need it for your use case does not make it unneccessary. Most desktops require dbus, systemd uses dbus. Suggesting unneccessary is funny, but does not make it true.

            Comment


            • #21
              Systemd requiring a Desktop Bus is an example of things gone horribly wrong. Init! Requiring another daemon!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Teho View Post
                We should have kdbus ("kernel dbus") before the end of the year that makes it fast, lean and daemon-less.

                D-Bus is available for BSDs. According to Greg K-H some BSD developers are interested in kdbus too.
                Why not just plumber from Plan 9 instead?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                  Why not just plumber from Plan 9 instead?
                  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.
                  Last edited by TheBlackCat; 04-19-2013, 07:39 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Banu22elos View Post
                    lets hope they come to agree on something.
                    Read again. The meeting already took place.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by curaga View Post
                      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.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X