On 170219-19:41+0000, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:21:58 +0100, Miroslav Rovis wrote: > > ...[ you cut my argument here]... > > ...[ you cut my argument here]... > > ...[ you cut my argument here]... > > > 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! I wasn't being ironic.
> > 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. I installed gnunet. Without dbus. Only had to modify one ebuild because bluez had a dependency for dbus. But won't be able to use gnunet-gtk because all gtk greater than 3.10 (or so) depend on dbus. I hope so much the Gentoo devs keep the -dbus available. Really busy, and obsessively interested in gnunet... Regards! -- Miroslav Rovis Zagreb, Croatia https://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
