[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 9p/plumber to replace D-Bus?

On 12/08/2014 10:43 AM, berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote:

Le 08.12.2014 14:18, Marty a écrit :
I almost tagged this off-topic but it's directed toward ordinary
users (with developer backgrounds). I first raised this on
modular-debian but I want to get some ideas from a wider audience.

I'm starting to get familiar with Plan 9 and D-Bus, to compare how
try to solve the same set of problems.

Plan 9 concepts attempt to solve Unix problems in a very different
way than Opendesktop.org. For people wanting to return to the
Unix concepts, 9p/plumber (or an updated version) seems like a
fit going forward, for basic IPC purposes. 9p is already in Linux,
probably could be ported to the other Debian ports.

I realize I just have to convince millions of people to re-plumb
core OS in a short period of time, but recent history teaches us that
that this is entirely feasible! Thus emboldened, I would even deign
to give users a choice in the matter, but realistically, this would
probably be an experimental project.

You won't convince anyone if you do not build a PoC. Especially
developers giving their time literally for free.
Asking questions is a nice way to learn how you could do that PoC,
anyway. Asking and trying.

If this proves feasible, that's what I hope to do. I just want to know
if anyone thinks it's a good idea, before I commit time and resources.
My knowledge of all of the issues is sketchy at best.

I don't know where to start yet. It's obviously not a very original
idea and I've read of people doing it in the past, some as research
projects, but details are sketchy and I don't want to end up
reinventing any wheels.

Could an IPC bridge/shim mechanism connect to a new IPC model while
and DE's migrate from D-Bus, or support both optionally? I can see an
updated version of Plumber might be needed, and things might be
simplified by other aspects of the Plan 9 paradigm, like per-process
namespaces and treating everything as a file.

Multi-seat PC and other
anachronisms probably have to go away.

As Lisi asked, what about choice? How could you say that those are
anachronisms, too?
Perl guys are used to say this: "there is more than one way to achieve
it". This can be applied to so many things.

PC as time-sharing system was the anachronism that caused Bell Labs to
scrap Unix, if I understand the history correctly. That's why I think
it's a broken model that not survive. For me the choice is the option
not to be tied to that broken model forever.

As for choice to keep it, that's why I proposed an IPC bridge mechanism
(although that's purely speculative).

About anachronism... you should read about what is the minitel*, and
then, consider thinking about how most people uses their computers ;)

I started out designing terminals back in the stone age of computers,
so I would have hard time giving up ttys and serial ports. :)

*: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel

Which I assume gave us minicom, right? Long live Minitel!

Reply to: