On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Jude Nelson wrote:

>    The reason they're working on kdbus at all is because they have
>    discovered that it's costly to pipe a lot of data between dbus
>    endpoints

reminds me of the time we had some momentum to have vloopback into
Linux. or even before that, the times Geert Knorr put together
video4linux 1 and then 2... at those times, Alan Cox wipped us hard in
the multimedia camp, because of keeping bloat out of the kernel, despite
those patches did have a relevant use in the industry...

now I wonder, if Alan Cox and some other wise mentors Linux hasn't
mentioned, will be reasonable allies against the systemd avalanche.

I was from the "we are young and we want innovation" camp back at that
time and can personally relate to the need of some kdbus features in the
Linux kernel, but it must be seen how that is accomplished. The real
problem in systemd is not the innovation that it brings, but the method,
or attitude, of fencing off from competition by lacking documentation
and intertwining all components.

I think the Linux Foundation should institute a "technical anti-trust"
commission to marshall such take-over attempts out of the kernel. I that
would be in place, with a reasonable policy about documentation and
versioning and changes being negotiated rather than imposed
unilaterally, then most of my fears about systemd/Linux would vanish.

ciao

--
Denis "Jaromil" Roio, Dyne.org Think (& Do) Tank
We are free to share code and we code to share freedom
Web: https://j.dyne.org Contact: https://j.dyne.org/c.vcf
GPG: 6113 D89C A825 C5CE DD02 C872 73B3 5DA5 4ACB 7D10
Confidential communications: https://keybase.io/jaromil