:: Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the …
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Gravis
Date:  
To: dng@lists.dyne.org
Subject: Re: [Dng] OT: Linux kernel and the force behind it
> RPC had already been solved in a general way by SunRPC (ONCRPC) before
either GNOME or KDE existed

interesting I'd never read about those until now. however, there was no
GPL (compatible?) version for Linux (still isn't?) and the internet didn't
have it's information as organized back then. sure you can find
information easy with wikipedia... but wikipedia started in 2005. this was
also the era when xml was the solution to every problem which somewhat
explains why the messages are encoded in xml. who knows, maybe the did
know about ONCRPC but didn't like it and decided to make their own.

--Gravis

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Jude Nelson <judecn@???> wrote:

> Nevertheless, RPC had already been solved in a general way by SunRPC
> (ONCRPC) before either GNOME or KDE existed. Heck, the earliest versions
> predate Linux.
>
> Given the combined functionality offered by PolicyKit/Polkit and dbus, I'm
> beginning to think that FreeDesktop has succeeded in re-inventing the
> virtual filesystem (albeit poorly).
>
> -Jude
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Gravis <ring3k@???> wrote:
>
>> > But I wonder why people have developped dbus instead of using a
>> ready-made, well-tested, lightweight, language-agnostic middleware? Yes it
>> exsts; there's at least one, ZeroMQ.
>>
>> D-Bus has existed for about a decade if not more. As far as I can tell, ZeroMQ
>> has existed for a few years. Also, D-Bus is written in the fashion that
>> matches how the GTK API which is a C API. libdbus has lots of language
>> wrappers.
>>
>> D-Bus is more for RPC than IPC which is an issue as there is no standard
>> in POSIX for RPC.
>>
>> --Gravis
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Didier Kryn <kryn@???> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Le 20/02/2015 13:48, Martijn Dekkers a écrit :
>>>
>>>    I would say +1 for everything that is written with this e-mail and
>>>> above. However, there's one thing here,
>>>> there are more people running servers than people running linux on
>>>> their desktops, so IMHO devuan should first focus on the servers.

>>>>
>>>
>>> I strongly believe that if we manage to pull together a kick-ass,
>>> up-to-date, and rock-solid server build that does not require systemd, we
>>> will see serious uptake from many, many users.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Guys, I don't think there is contradiction between server and
>>> desktop. There is a difference in the user base and installed applications,
>>> not in the OS. dbus and udev/eudev/mdev/vdev/ are just useful services
>>> which make life easier if they are not poeterized, but could remain
>>> optional. I think most desktop users expect these services, but they
>>> understand it is not the top priority of the devs.

>>>
>>>     By do-it-all desktops, I was targetting Gnome and KDE, not Xfce. It
>>> is too bad that xfce4 is now contaminated, But in my installed Wheezy
>>> servers and desktop, it is not. I've no complaint against it. Is there
>>> anything new in the Jessie version, appart from infection?

>>>
>>>     Concerning dbus, there is a need for publisher/subscriber
>>> communication on the desktop. But I wonder why people have developped dbus
>>> instead of using a ready-made, well-tested, lightweight, language-agnostic
>>> middleware? Yes it exsts; there's at least one, ZeroMQ.

>>>
>>>     Didier

>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dng mailing list
>>> Dng@???
>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dng mailing list
>> Dng@???
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>>
>>
>