Re: 9p/plumber to replace D-Bus?
On 12/08/2014 10:43 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Le 08.12.2014 14:18, Marty a Ã©critÂ :
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
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. :)
Which I assume gave us minicom, right? Long live Minitel!