On 24/08/16 11:13, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 21:47:41 -0400
> Clarke Sideroad <clarke.sideroad@???> wrote:
>
>> I think kdbus is dead due to the bad press, but I believe there is
>> bus1 coming along to replace that.
>> https://github.com/bus1/bus1
>> http://www.bus1.org/
>>
>> Some familiar names, but possibly not directly part of systemd........
>>
>> Clarke
>
>
> DANGER Will Robinson. From the COPYING document:
>
> ===========================================
> COPYRIGHT: (ordered alphabetically)
> Copyright (C) 2014-2015 Red Hat, Inc.
> AUTHORS: (ordered alphabetically)
> David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@???>
> Tom Gundersen <teg@???>
> ===========================================
>
> And from Wikipedia's systemd page:
>

> ===========================================
> Original author(s)     
> Lennart Poettering, Kay Sievers, Harald
> Hoyer, Daniel Mack, Tom Gundersen and David Herrmann
> ===========================================

>
> These saboteurs just won't quit. It's our job to get out the word so
> bus1 fares no better than kdbus, because Lennart bragged about his
> plans when he gets the kernel to enforce use of systemd.

I'm not worried. Mantra from get-go has been "Don't break userspace". If
there is a valid use-case for a feature there will be plenty of
opposition to it's removal.

> What is the best way of getting the word out?

I wouldn't worry. You are not giving anyone involved in kernel
development enough credit if you honestly believe this will fly under
the radar and people won't notice.

Banging drums and putting forth objections based on some names and
conjecture will simply get you roundly ridiculed and then ignored by
those that actually matter. kdbus was not rejected on politics, it was
rejected on technical merit quite validly by those who care. If bus1
hasn't rectified _all_ of those objections and can demonstrate a real
requirement then it won't get past the gate.

The mistake with kdbus was it was a shit design with the sole purpose of
papering over existing shit design in dbus user space, and because the
systemd folk have Greg KH on board they assumed they'd just be able to
slip more shit into the kernel without question. People who actually
knew better stepped up and nak'd it on technical grounds.

If bus1 really has technical merit, can demonstrate it solves real
problems and has all its shortcomings addressed there is no reason it
shouldn't be integrated into the kernel. They can't then just go and
remove netlink to spite non-systemd users. It has an existing userspace
and other use cases.