KDBUS Merging Prospects Get Debated

[psychoticmeow]

that 4 out of 6 real life reasons for it are about performance (aka overhead) where 1 is PA (audio) and 2 are UI is not enough ?
GKH actually used the word "multimedia" when asked why dbus performance needs to be better

and no, i wont "backup" this claim
you can go read through hundreds of emails to find that one, i'm actually doing something useful right now

And yet in both the examples we've seen they always talk about security. Wouldn't it be fair to say that performance and security are the main arguments for kdbus over dbus?

[psychoticmeow]

Again, isn't that exactly the major problem? The root cause?

The root cause of what? Your discomfort with the project?

[duby229]

The root cause of what? Your discomfort with the project?

So instead of acknowledgement all that exists is dismissal. As per usual.

EDIT: And you probably still think your opinion is supreme and ruled by the majority huh?

[psychoticmeow]

So instead of acknowledgement all that exists is dismissal. As per usual.

EDIT: And you probably still think your opinion is supreme and ruled by the majority huh?

You have a problem with the project, I do not, isn't that a statement of fact? I'm not sure what the issue is here.

[duby229]

You have a problem with the project, I do not, isn't that a statement of fact? I'm not sure what the issue is here.

No it's a deflection. It's not an answer or acknowledgement. All you're doing is sidestepping the real facts of the issues.

[psychoticmeow]

No it's a deflection. It's not an answer or acknowledgement. All you're doing is sidestepping the real facts of the issues.

I don't even know what you think I'm deflecting...

[duby229]

I don't even know what you think I'm deflecting...

Alright, that's fine I'll recap....

Unfortunately for the needs of systemd it would have similar drawbacks as dbus does. They need something that can be used from the first moments within the kernel.

In which case it seems pretty obvious that systemd is over stepping the bounds of what it should be. It is supposed to the lowest level of userspace, isn't that exactly where it should be provided?

EDIT: I agree the kernel needs an IPC, but no way should it be kdbus. If systemd needs it then they can abstract it from a standardized kernel IPC.

Here you say that it's the needs of systemd that cause drawbacks. I agreed with you and stated additionally that systemd is overstepping the bounds of what it should be.

These are bounds you've placed on it, not it's developers, systemd is more than just an init system.

Isn't that exactly the major problem? Definitely. That is exactly it.

In response you stated that systemd is more than just an init system. Then I asked isn't that the major problem?

I don't agree, and neither do it's developers.

Again, isn't that exactly the major problem? The root cause?

First sidestep.

The root cause of what? Your discomfort with the project?

So instead of acknowledgement all that exists is dismissal. As per usual.

EDIT: And you probably still think your opinion is supreme and ruled by the majority huh?

Second sidestep.

You have a problem with the project, I do not, isn't that a statement of fact? I'm not sure what the issue is here.

No it's a deflection. It's not an answer or acknowledgement. All you're doing is sidestepping the real facts of the issues.

Third sidestep.

It's time to stop dancing around the issue and acknowledge it.

[computerquip]

Alright, that's fine I'll recap....



Here you say that it's the needs of systemd that cause drawbacks. I agreed with you and stated additionally that systemd is overstepping the bounds of what it should be.



In response you stated that systemd is more than just an init system. Then I asked isn't that the major problem?



First sidestep.



Second sidestep.



Third sidestep.

It's time to stop dancing around the issue and acknowledge it.

How is that sidestepping the argument? He claimed he disagreed that systemd being more than an init system is a problem.
You're wanting him to acknowledge that systemd being more than a stupidly simple init system is a problem and he won't. That's not really his problem, that's yours, because it means you can't advance your argument against him.

I see a lot of misunderstanding of burden of proof in this thread as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philos...urden_of_proof
Please read. The idea that kdbus is solely for performance is an "argument of ignorance", where none of you have proven this to be true, not providing a link, a quote, or even reasoning. Religious zealots commit to this crap and frankly, it makes them look retarded. It's no different here.

I'm not for or against KDBUS. However, some of the arguments in this thread are simply embarrassing and without merit. I'm all fine for trolling but I'm not so sure everyone in the thread is actually trolling.

[Awesomeness]

The second most irritating thing is of course the offensive and insulting manner by which they very often react to any criticism.

Yeah, the systemd haters are of the calm and sober kind: https://twitter.com/ShitDevuanSays/s...98633135796225 ?

[phrx_reader]

Hi, now Linus has replied: Quoting:

"That said, I have to admit to being particularly disappointed with the
performance argument for merging it. Having looked at the dbus
performance, and come to the conclusion that the reason dbus performs
abysmally badly is just pure shit user space code, I am not AT ALL
impressed by the performance argument. We don't merge kernel code just
because user space was written by a retarded monkey on crack. Kernel
code has higher standards, and yes, that also means that it tends to
perform better, but no, "user space code is shit" is not a valid
reason for pushing things into the kernel."

Not so much to fuzz about any longer, right?