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
      lets hope they come to agree on something.

      Comment


      • #13
        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


        • #14
          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


          • #15
            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


            • #16
              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


              • #17
                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


                • #18
                  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


                  • #19
                    Systemd requiring a Desktop Bus is an example of things gone horribly wrong. Init! Requiring another daemon!

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      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

                      Working...
                      X