2014/12/12 23:30 <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Le 12.12.2014 14:55, Joel Rees a écrit :
>> 2014/12/12 21:08 :
>> > Le 12.12.2014 13:05, Andrei POPESCU a écrit :
>> >> On Jo, 11 dec 14, 17:33:51, email@example.com 
>> >>> Plus, it's not portable
>> >>> (anyone have seen dbus on windows? not sure, but I doubt it's on
>> *BSD, too)
>> >>> unlike sockets.
>> >> From http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/dbus/ 
>> >> D-Bus is very portable to any Linux or UNIX flavor, and a
>> port to
>> >> Windows is in progress.
Well, yeah, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.
>> >> Kind regards,
>> >> Andrei
>> > Nice to learn about that, and sorry for wrong assumption.
>> > Does someone use it on a non-linux based computer? Any experience
>> about that would be appreciated.
>> FWIW, openbsd has an implementation of a "dbus" daemon just for the
>> dbus dependent apps to talk to.
>> It's not the dbus that you download from freedesktop.org , of
> So I was wrong. Good to know :)
I did say it was not the dbus you download from freedesktop.org, didn't I? ;-/
My understanding is that it is not just a port. Re-written from scratch, I think. Stuff that just tries to be a lazy man's sockets largely left out, I think.
I would not say that you were exactly wrong. Portability is not just a matter of getting things to compile, and there are some features of dbus that one would just as soon leave out when re-implementing it.