| 1 |
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:31:26 +0100, Alan McKinnon |
| 2 |
<alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Friday 12 February 2010 01:10:58 Zeerak Waseem wrote: |
| 5 |
>> But honestly, I don't have a solution to the problem, what I can however |
| 6 |
>> say is that my browser and my mail app, are pretty deft at realizing |
| 7 |
>> that |
| 8 |
>> their attempts to access a server, are in vain, without any network |
| 9 |
>> manager to tell them that they're offline. If there is any inter-app |
| 10 |
>> communication going on, it's not anything I know enough about to give a |
| 11 |
>> qualified guess about. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> So do this then: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Build a desktop from old ebuilds and tarballs from a time when dbus was |
| 16 |
> not |
| 17 |
> prevalent. Make sure that the result is somewhat comparable to what you |
| 18 |
> like |
| 19 |
> to have now. Note the code sizes and other metrics of complexity. Note |
| 20 |
> resource usage. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Then examine the code for all the major apps you have, find the IPC-type |
| 23 |
> functionality they have and remove it. Rebuild everything. Note the code |
| 24 |
> sizes |
| 25 |
> and other metrics of complexity. Note resource usage. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Compare these two sets of numbers. Then run your new IPC-less machine. |
| 28 |
> Let us |
| 29 |
> know how that works out for you. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> At the very least you will gain an understanding of just how much IPC is |
| 32 |
> going |
| 33 |
> on even in minimal environments. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Well, I'll have to tell you, that I might just do that one of these days, |
| 37 |
because like you say. If nothing else I'll gain an understanding of it. |
| 38 |
As you suggested in the last mail, I don't think I've considered all the |
| 39 |
different uses of IPC. :-) |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Zeerak |
Archives