| |||||||||||||
Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernelKroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernelPosted Feb 9, 2013 13:54 UTC (Sat) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)In reply to: Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel by oldtomas Parent article: Kroah-Hartman: AF_BUS, D-Bus, and the Linux kernel
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 ☺
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||