| 1 |
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:21:58 +0100, Miroslav Rovis wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > KDE3 had its own IPC protocol, DCOP, that was used as the basis for |
| 4 |
> > DBus. Once there was a standard IPC system, there was no need for KDE |
| 5 |
> > to maintain its own. GNOME and KDE are integrated suites of software, |
| 6 |
> > some form of IPC is necessary for them to function. To ditch DBus, |
| 7 |
> > they would have to reinvent the wheel. |
| 8 |
> Yeah, right! |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
What's that supposed to mean. This is documented fact, plus, if you had |
| 11 |
ever used DCOP, you would immediately spot the similarities in DBus. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> But I can't go into detailed discussions full time about dbus opaque or |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
DBus is a protocol specification, where is the opaqueness. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> not. (I really don't expect anybody can deny spender's claims in that |
| 18 |
> link on Linux security)... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Allowing programs to communicate with one another will always raise |
| 21 |
possibilities for exploitation, but that is not necessarily a reason to |
| 22 |
isolate all software from one another. After all, isn't having each |
| 23 |
program do one job well and communicate with others part of the "True |
| 24 |
Unix Way"? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Teamwork is essential; it gives the enemy other people to shoot at. |
Archives