| 1 |
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:31:21 -0500, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > Because nine years ago, Linux desktop software didn't use |
| 4 |
> > interprocess communication. Of course things will still work, but not |
| 5 |
> > necessarily everything. For example, Network Manager uses D-Bus to |
| 6 |
> > tell programs when your Internet connection is available and not, so |
| 7 |
> > your mail client goes into offline mode rather than pointlessly |
| 8 |
> > trying to access your mailbox. KDE4 uses it quite extensively, ust as |
| 9 |
> > KDE3 used DCOP. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> There is too much solution-in-search-of-a-problem here. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Hardly, IPC is harrdly new, the amiga was doing ti 25 years ago and |
| 14 |
shortly after that it became available to user scripts. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> XMMS followed |
| 17 |
> the original Unix philosophy... it did one thing did it right, namely |
| 18 |
> playing audio. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Yes, and if you have a number of programs, each doing one job only, they |
| 21 |
need to be able to communicate in order to do the larger job. Imagine a |
| 22 |
building site where the bricklayers, plasterers, electricians an |
| 23 |
plumbers didn't talk to each other or the project manager. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
In a shall, pipes can be used for IPC, but that doesn't work on a desktop |
| 26 |
so something else was needed. This has always been true, all that is |
| 27 |
new(ish) is that D-Bus is now the something else, and it is a global |
| 28 |
standard. DCOP was good, but it only worked with KDE programs, D-Bus |
| 29 |
means that your system is just that and not a bunch of programs each |
| 30 |
going their own way, ignoring each other and duplicating effort. If you |
| 31 |
want an OS like that, I hear they produce one in Redmond. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
If it isn't broken, I can fix it. |
Archives