On Sb, 01 nov 14, 14:24:28, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Le Sat, 01 Nov 2014 07:56:30 -0400,
Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> a écrit :
Yeah... the Unix way... which systemd and it's pieces violate in so
many ways.
Surprisingly 10th of different executables talking to each other using
a common IPC mechanism (dbus here) seems to be really "unixy" to me...
First off, we're talking about the hairball that is systemd, not the one
specific piece of the ecosystem that is DBUS.
As far as I can tell Laurent was talking about systemd.
Second, we're not talking about vaguely "unixy" - we're talking about a well
developed philosophy of designing things that dates back to Ken Thompson,
et. al (c.f., "The UNIX Programming Environment,"or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy).
Having said that, DBUS does seem to fit within the "UNIX way" - as a
component that "does one thing well."
But again, we're not talking about DBUS, we're talking about systemd -
except to the extent to the extent that DBUS is part of the systemd hairball
(I forget, is DBUS now part of the systemd source tree, the same way that
udev is?).
Do you mean the dbus daemon? No, the systemd developers have other
plans.
https://lwn.net/Articles/580194/