Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    Anyway fdo has a very broad scope. Covering Linux desktops instead of free desktops would be much better for Linux.
    What do you mean?

    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    Any standard that requires D-bus is a failed standard.
    What is wrong with D-Bus?

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by curaga View Post
      Any standard that requires D-bus is a failed standard.
      No, it's actually great idea to use D-bus, because it's not available in BSD. It's Linux community that's driving FLOSS and there's no contribution coming from BSD tiny word. Just ask KDE, Gnome or X developers about this or check which bug reports are meaningful. For example: PC-BSD has debugging disabled while even Ubuntu has this turned on (which makes Ubuntu vs BSD benchmarks quite unfair).

      Comment


      • #13
        lets hope they come to agree on something.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
          What is wrong with D-Bus?
          It's a bloated, slow, and unnecessary daemon. My systems are usually dbus-less.

          Re Pawlerson, I don't know about it on BSD. If it's not available there, then that's another good reason against it.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by curaga View Post
            It's a bloated, slow, and unnecessary daemon. My systems are usually dbus-less.
            We should have kdbus ("kernel dbus") before the end of the year that makes it fast, lean and daemon-less.

            Originally posted by curaga View Post
            Re Pawlerson, I don't know about it on BSD. If it's not available there, then that's another good reason against it.
            D-Bus is available for BSDs. According to Greg K-H some BSD developers are interested in kdbus too.

            Comment


            • #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

                      Working...
                      X