On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:21:58 +0100, Miroslav Rovis wrote: > > KDE3 had its own IPC protocol, DCOP, that was used as the basis for > > DBus. Once there was a standard IPC system, there was no need for KDE > > to maintain its own. GNOME and KDE are integrated suites of software, > > some form of IPC is necessary for them to function. To ditch DBus, > > they would have to reinvent the wheel. > Yeah, right!
What's that supposed to mean. This is documented fact, plus, if you had ever used DCOP, you would immediately spot the similarities in DBus. > But I can't go into detailed discussions full time about dbus opaque or DBus is a protocol specification, where is the opaqueness. > not. (I really don't expect anybody can deny spender's claims in that > link on Linux security)... Allowing programs to communicate with one another will always raise possibilities for exploitation, but that is not necessarily a reason to isolate all software from one another. After all, isn't having each program do one job well and communicate with others part of the "True Unix Way"? -- Neil Bothwick Teamwork is essential; it gives the enemy other people to shoot at.
pgpLfMSf5HF9F.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
