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/ Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature