| |||||||||||||
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernelKroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernelPosted Feb 9, 2013 10:03 UTC (Sat) by oldtomas (guest, #72579)In reply to: Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel by rahulsundaram Parent article: Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel
I'd rather some people stop crying "OMG!!! A DESKTOP HATER&#*%@".
Look: You may take your D-BUS, your D-TRAIN and you D-TUBE/D-SUBWAY (depending on your side of the pond) as much as you like. I prefer to avoid them. Let's just agree to differ.
Of course, I try to keep a usable niche in my preferred distro which doesn't force me into D-BUS. Scratch my own itch it's called.
Now: can we just get along? Remember: we have (I hope) more in common than what separates us.
(Log in to post comments)
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel Posted Feb 9, 2013 13:46 UTC (Sat) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link]
The problem is that this "hate" is based on irrational and/or nonsensical arguments.
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel Posted Feb 9, 2013 18:37 UTC (Sat) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Actually, I believe it's based on the argument that it's non-unixy!
DISPLAY=192.168.2.5:0 dbus-launch kate
will, I understand, crash and burn pretty spectacularly. I dunno, I haven't really played with it.
Plus the fact that dbus was born as part of Gnome ... I gather the KDE equivalent was network-aware and didn't not work on a network.
Hence my comment elsewhere about wanting stuff to work over the network ...
Cheers,
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel Posted Feb 10, 2013 3:39 UTC (Sun) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
As said elsewhere, loads of IPC methods that are part of UNIX standards don't work across the network. This just reiterates that there are no arguments.
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel Posted Feb 10, 2013 8:25 UTC (Sun) by krake (subscriber, #55996) [Link]
KDE's DCOP, the D-Bus predecessor, worked over network due to using some X11 client-to-client communication mechanism.
Of course this isn't an option for something that also needs to be able to provide the equivalent to the D-Bus system bus.
D-Bus, however, could make use of other techniques, e.g. certificate based authentication over TCP, etc. but on the other hand that would limit the feature set available to clients which wanted to support that (might be OK for the majority of clients though).
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel Posted Feb 10, 2013 19:36 UTC (Sun) by hp (subscriber, #5220) [Link]
there is no conceptual problem tunneling dbus over X or adding a secure TCP auth mechanism. it already works if you have a network home dir in common (because the "cookie in homedir" auth then works).
it's just a matter of someone caring enough to do the work. in around a decade not a single person has wanted this enough to code it or pay to code it. That's why it didn't get coded.
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel Posted Feb 10, 2013 16:20 UTC (Sun) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link]
> The problem is that this "hate" is based on irrational and/or nonsensical arguments.
Of course your arguments are thoroughly rational and those disagreeing just Haven' Seen The Light (TM).
It's that kind of argument what makes me sad (it's on both sides of the rift, mind you).
It's about time that both sides accept that the other side might have perfectly valid arguments (which I (for any value of "I") jut don't get or which don't apply to me).
As a corollary, extreme positions ("X should be the default/only option everywhere" vs. "X should die already", for any value of "X", e.g. D-BUS, Systemd whatever) won't make anything better.
And your position "You disagree with me: that must be irrational" doesn't help (neither the opponents nor the proponents).
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel Posted Feb 10, 2013 23:39 UTC (Sun) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
I think you are promoting a false equivilancy. On one side there are people working on making a practical, pragmatic IPC system for rational, documented reasons and on the other a small minority who mostly engage in debate using emotional terms without explaining any position other than how much they hate the new thing. You see the same thing, often from the same people, in discussions about systemd, udev, pulse audio, wayland and d-bus. The few who are articulate enough to communicate a reason should be applauded, the few who actually listen rather than monologue, and show the ability to change their mind, or at least respect others, should be applauded greatly.
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel Posted Feb 11, 2013 13:21 UTC (Mon) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link]
Yeah exactly.
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel Posted Feb 9, 2013 13:54 UTC (Sat) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
You have not specified any reason why d-bus causes you to start shouting.
It is just an way to do IPC. The original comment was not really after the d-bus, but more the reaction it gives (lack of argumentation).
I for one do not mind d-bus, but if I can turn it off on a server, then I highly prefer that (avoids security bugs). D-bus provides a lot of features and that will have bugs. With time though anything you write yourself will likely have more bugs than just using d-bus. That and because enterprise distributions are also heading towards systemd (thus d-bus) results that you cannot avoid it anymore.
Regarding getting along: less caps, more arguments and all is well ☺
What about binder? Posted Feb 10, 2013 6:04 UTC (Sun) by alison (✭ supporter ✭, #63752) [Link]
In 5 years, all userspace applications that don't get merged into the kernel will have been swallowed by systemd instead.
But seriously, why doesn't anyone mention binder in this context? It's already in staging, last I checked. Binder is a kernel interface for what is widely viewed as a simpler, lighter weight replacement for D-Bus. Binder's native communication is pub-sub, with userspace programs registering for events for which they define handlers. Assuredly pub-sub and multicast have some similarities, although I don't know if binder (which is intended for a fairly narrow set of use cases) will scale well, since scalability along with speed appear to be the main goals of AF_DBUS.
What about binder? Posted Feb 10, 2013 13:08 UTC (Sun) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
if you read the article you'll note that Greg already replied about binder.
What about binder? Posted Feb 10, 2013 21:32 UTC (Sun) by alison (✭ supporter ✭, #63752) [Link]
ovitters, where does Greg reply about binder? On Google+ perhaps? I see no comment on his blog. The H Online does discuss Android intents but not binder specifically. It should be possible to support an intents interface with D-Bus, so it's not clear (and perhaps not yet decided) what solution is contemplated by those who discussed IPC at the Gnome Developer Experience event.
What about binder? Posted Feb 10, 2013 21:57 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
https://plus.google.com/111049168280159033135/posts/4cAYc...
search for binder. Took a couple of seconds to google it.
What about binder? Posted Feb 10, 2013 22:36 UTC (Sun) by alison (✭ supporter ✭, #63752) [Link]
Thanks, rahulsundaram. I wanted to make sure I read the same comments as everyone else and wasn't sure whether G+ was what ovitters referred to.
What about binder? Posted Feb 14, 2013 7:22 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
Just hope that this doesn't *bind* many novices out of Linux permanently (concretely in desktop)
One of the main motives for kernel Dbus for now is "Linux Apps"(it will have many more for sure)... but i definitely don't like the model at all...too much sandboxing you end up sandboxing the user out lol...
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/GNOME-developers-p...
To me it would be much better to implement "capabilities" in the style of EROS http://www.eros-os.org/eros.html
The masses are ignorant of this tech wonders... they aren't as savvy or seasoned developers as you gentlemen.
What about binder? Posted Feb 11, 2013 8:34 UTC (Mon) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
Sorry, should've been clearer. I meant the comments at Google+.
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel Posted Feb 10, 2013 16:29 UTC (Sun) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link]
> You have not specified any reason why d-bus causes you to start shouting.
I assume by shouting you mean this "OMG...". I wasn't. I was just paraphrasing the article upthread.
> It is just an way to do IPC.
I know.
> The original comment was not really after the d-bus, but more the reaction it gives (lack of argumentation).
And that was exactly what I was answering to: we've got a situation where both sides (for the moment) seem to be convinced of their thing. Let's deal with it. That's why my post ended with the plea to just get along and agree to differ.
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel Posted Feb 10, 2013 17:12 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Implying that the two sides are equal is silly. One side is writing code and developing an IPC to suit their needs and it has been used widely and the other side is just whining about it often with no explanation as to why.
|
|||||||||||||