Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDBUS & Systemd Now Yields A Working System

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

  • #61
    Wow, this thread has been so derailed it's in the woods somewhere.

    Anyway, good job, systemd developers. More features for D-BUS is always good. I hope that will also make some of the D-BUS related problems I tend to run into every now and then go away.

    I don't really get the point of sandboxed software, though. The current regular program rights seem to be good enough as it is. Though I'm not using GNOME, so I'm not sure what issues they're facing on their side...

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by zester View Post
      I know, Im drunk posting. Its fun. I messed my response all up. See above.
      This explains so much about this thread...

      Comment


      • #63
        Please don't waste developers' time: don't feed the troll.
        ## VGA ##
        AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
        Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by zester View Post
          Kdbus was in fact a student project, it was not written from scratch by the kernel team. Sorry to tell you this but D-Bus might be the most widely installed IPC but its the least used IPC in linux. ZeroMQ and Google Protobuf might not have all the features of D-Bus but most of those advanced features are rarely even used even in D-Bus. And
          D-Bus doesn't even come close to ZeroMQ is usage share not even close.

          Even when comparing D-Bus vs ZeroMQ in the IPC arena for every one D-Bus Desktop application there is 1000+ ZeroMQ network applications using its native IPC there.
          Today D-Bus and ZeroMQ not used for the same things, D-Bus being primarily for communicaing within a single node (often between lesser and higher privileged services) and ZeroMQ typically used for communicating between nodes (and typically unprivileged services). Are you arguing that ZeroMQ would be a better fit than kdbus for creating a secure IPC for sandboxing applications et.c.?

          Btw, I urge you to remove the dbus daemon and libraries, to see how much of the system can be used afterwards.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
            That isn't a very useful comment since kernel developers have explained precisely how it does improve security and I have already linked to that

            https://lwn.net/Articles/551969/
            the article is pretty bad and this is still misunderstood. moving such code into the kernel exposes more kernel surface to attackers. When you exploit the kernel, you win. its better than root. generally you can disable selinux and what not.

            the reason for kdbus is really just a random one because its tied to systemd and the author has influence. all his creations so far were highly criticized because none where the right thing to do, but he had the agenda and power to push them through.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by zester View Post
              PROOF!!!!!!! First off Whats your first and last name, and do you have any screenshot of your projects that you can share with the forum?????
              What does that matter? I don't claim to be some key KDE developer without posting any proof of anything. I have never seen your name mentioned in planet.kde.org. I can't find any commits by your nick or real name from ohloh.net or kde.org. You seem to think that people have any respect for you, that your arguments have _any_ value without you actually posting some evidence for them. You once claimed you helped with Hawaii project, guess what? According to github there's no commits from on that project. You once claimed you had worked on Ogre3D, I don't see any commits from you. The claim that you have been some "major" influence in KDE4/Qt5 developement is absolutely ridiculous and guess what, I can't find anything anywhere pointing in that direction.

              You seem delusional about your importance.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by zester View Post
                Everything is sooo clean, and every library and tool is well maintained, by its original maintainers. No more long waits to get
                simple bugs fixed, no licensing conflicts.
                Originally posted by zester View Post
                We in-vision an ecosystem where "Open Source" and "Proprietary" software work's together, in an effort to build the best possible platform for current and future generation's of users.
                How do you expect to not have long waits to get simple bugs in proprietary software fixed?

                Originally posted by zester View Post
                I never completed this application unfortunately.
                I remember seeing this "LiquidPixel" program when you advertised it the last time here. Would have been interesting if it was a real application...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                  I don't really get the point of sandboxed software, though. The current regular program rights seem to be good enough as it is. Though I'm not using GNOME, so I'm not sure what issues they're facing on their side...
                  https://lwn.net/Articles/562138/

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                    I still don't see a point. This seems to be geared towards something similar to mobile apps, which are small and crappy. If the author/s care enough about their work, they will work with packagers and get their programs included in distros. If they don't, then it's not worth the users' attention, either (and if they really want to, then users can manually compile it). This support for such sandboxed apps sounds like pandering to lazy coders.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                      I still don't see a point. This seems to be geared towards something similar to mobile apps, which are small and crappy. If the author/s care enough about their work, they will work with packagers and get their programs included in distros. If they don't, then it's not worth the users' attention, either (and if they really want to, then users can manually compile it). This support for such sandboxed apps sounds like pandering to lazy coders.
                      There are plenty of use cases you are apparently not considering.

                      Mobile apps are small and crappy? It is amoung the fastest growing software businesses and plenty of apps are amazingly well done compared to Linux desktop apps. Also what about ISV's? What about software that doesn't fit the licensing regulations of distros? What about bleeding edge development snapshots? Those are just a few examples.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by ChrisXY View Post
                        How do you expect to not have long waits to get simple bugs in proprietary software fixed?
                        It's clear your not a Qt developer, and you don't follow the development of various core tools. If you were then you would know that I have been bitching about the same Qt bugs for almost 10 years? And many coretools - GNU tools are not actually developed any longer there patch maintained by the community.


                        Originally posted by ChrisXY View Post
                        I remember seeing this "LiquidPixel" program when you advertised it the last time here. Would have been interesting if it was a real application...
                        You should have actually read my entire post, I did say "Unfortunately I never finished it"

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                          There are plenty of use cases you are apparently not considering.

                          Mobile apps are small and crappy? It is amoung the fastest growing software businesses and plenty of apps are amazingly well done compared to Linux desktop apps. Also what about ISV's? What about software that doesn't fit the licensing regulations of distros? What about bleeding edge development snapshots? Those are just a few examples.
                          Those apps that are well done also have no issues getting packaged. I don't know what "ISV" stands for. About licensing regulations, they're there for a reason, I don't see why distributions would jump at the opportunity to create a workaround for them. And usually those regulations don't apply to user repositories, anyway. About bleeding-edge snapshots, I don't see any problems with the current system (scripts automatically pull git snapshots and build packages out of them at least that's how it works in Open Build Service, and the same principle works in Gentoo). So I'm still not convinced.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            I think I got it in one piece now.
                            Bold is relevant, italic is irrelevant.

                            Originally posted by zester View Post
                            Anyways I am celebrating tonight because we finely got all of the GPL/LGPL out of
                            userspace. The whole system only contains BSD/MIT/Boost/Zlib licensed software except for the
                            Linux kernel.


                            Everything is sooo clean, and every library and tool is well maintained, by its original maintainers. No more long waits to get
                            simple bugs fixed, no licensing conflicts.


                            FreeBSD and NetBSD Dev's have been sooooo helpful.
                            Originally posted by zester View Post
                            We in-vision an ecosystem where "Open Source" and "Proprietary" software work's together, in an effort to build the best possible platform for current and future generation's of users.
                            Originally posted by zester View Post
                            From: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic....983743#p983743

                            Ok so I took a look it doesn't have it's own window manager.

                            Thats a problem because all those applications it has I already wrote the only thing I
                            need is a qt based window manager.

                            Not to mention razor uses.
                            Cmake and GPL3/LGPL3

                            I use Qmake and the BSD license.
                            I see why he tries to get rid of GPL licensed software now - he obviously lobbies building of a proprietary system that might very well impose danger towards FLOSS users on desktop.
                            It very simply BSD-only proprietary encumbrance-friendly OS, with only Linux kernel being GPL. Linux can be easily replaced with BSD kernel, and then it will be spreading further.
                            It might very well party-up with microsoft or similar to driver off Linux marketshare, to make Valve switch from Linux by working with Nvidia(Valve-primary partner). You should understand, that Canonical and RH are both endangered through this vector.

                            I can see the destruction of Linux and specifically GNU due to diminishing share very well.

                            Whatever RedHat, Greg KH, Lennart do, they do right, as it seems to anger him.

                            He dislikes that the majority of ecosystem will become BSD-incompatible, and then make it impossible to switch kernel so easily. This is also the reason why he insisted on (now depricated) ZeroMQ - it is a BSD-licensed bus, thus it will be easily compatible to kernel switch if Linux implements it instead of systemd.

                            This is a proprietary monster in the works and he just revealed it.
                            This also confirms the issues with BSD crowd serving proprietary and being the backstabbers of GNU in particular.

                            Also, he has serious problems with basic security. I think this is what anyone can figure out:
                            Originally posted by zester View Post
                            We in-vision an ecosystem where "Open Source" and "Proprietary" software work's together, in an effort to build the best possible platform for current and future generation's of users.
                            Originally posted by zester View Post
                            Third Red Hat controls large portions of Linux and the NSA has them in there pocket. If you want to learn a little something about security and exploits
                            find your self a crypto expert and ask them why overly complicated code is bad, and how easy it is to "accidentally" lol expose an off by one bug/exploit/back door.
                            Proprietary (and he IS building a proprietary-only stack) and security are, of course, very unrelated. He says something like - your house is insecure because I saw you talking to NSA, lets build a pandora box system instead - it is secure, popular and best possible platform for current and future generations of users.

                            Just felt the need to post that. Take care.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by brosis View Post
                              I think I got it in one piece now.
                              Bold is relevant, italic is irrelevant.

                              I see why he tries to get rid of GPL licensed software now - he obviously lobbies building of a proprietary system that might very well impose danger towards FLOSS users on desktop.
                              It very simply BSD-only proprietary encumbrance-friendly OS, with only Linux kernel being GPL. Linux can be easily replaced with BSD kernel, and then it will be spreading further.
                              It might very well party-up with microsoft or similar to driver off Linux marketshare, to make Valve switch from Linux by working with Nvidia(Valve-primary partner). You should understand, that Canonical and RH are both endangered through this vector.

                              I can see the destruction of Linux and specifically GNU due to diminishing share very well.

                              Whatever RedHat, Greg KH, Lennart do, they do right, as it seems to anger him.

                              He dislikes that the majority of ecosystem will become BSD-incompatible, and then make it impossible to switch kernel so easily. This is also the reason why he insisted on (now depricated) ZeroMQ - it is a BSD-licensed bus, thus it will be easily compatible to kernel switch if Linux implements it instead of systemd.

                              This is a proprietary monster in the works and he just revealed it.
                              This also confirms the issues with BSD crowd serving proprietary and being the backstabbers of GNU in particular.

                              Also, he has serious problems with basic security. I think this is what anyone can figure out:

                              Proprietary (and he IS building a proprietary-only stack) and security are, of course, very unrelated. He says something like - your house is insecure because I saw you talking to NSA, lets build a pandora box system instead - it is secure, popular and best possible platform for current and future generations of users.

                              Just felt the need to post that. Take care.

                              I don't even know how to respond to that, "serious problems with basic security" how is that? There isn't any proprietary software in the stack.

                              If your asking me if I hate GNU/GPL and most Linux Developers in general, you hit the nail on the head there friend, and I am not the only one ether
                              20+ years of abuse because "we want to organize our root dir as we see fit", "because we want .desktop files to be valid ini files without some bullshit array
                              that breaks compatibility" with a basic ini parser. Research history see how the Gobo Linux project was treated or how Maxim Shemanarev(Author of AGG) was treated
                              years before he died.




                              Originally posted by brosis View Post
                              Quote Originally Posted by zester View Post
                              From: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic....983743#p983743

                              Ok so I took a look it doesn't have it's own window manager.

                              Thats a problem because all those applications it has I already wrote the only thing I
                              need is a qt based window manager.

                              Not to mention razor uses.
                              Cmake and GPL3/LGPL3

                              I use Qmake and the BSD license.
                              Buddy I took over development of eggwm, as the author abandoned it, I added in a compositor and css styling for the window decorations, not to mention
                              fixed countless bugs.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                                Those apps that are well done also have no issues getting packaged. I don't know what "ISV" stands for. About licensing regulations, they're there for a reason, I don't see why distributions would jump at the opportunity to create a workaround for them. And usually those regulations don't apply to user repositories, anyway. About bleeding-edge snapshots, I don't see any problems with the current system (scripts automatically pull git snapshots and build packages out of them at least that's how it works in Open Build Service, and the same principle works in Gentoo). So I'm still not convinced.
                                If you can see the need for "user repositories", I don't see why you object to sandboxed applications which are essentially a more secure version of the same thing. What exactly is your complaint?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X