Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by p_l 749 days ago
That's my point: Binder got merged before kdbus started development.

Also, I still don't see what kind of races you're getting other than having an init system too stupid to handle ordering for applications too stupid to handle graceful connections. (Looking at last version of kdbus docs, the main coherent argument about races is relevant only to how Unix sockets can't pass around authenticated metadata along the message)
1 comments
blucaz 748 days ago
> That's my point: Binder got merged before kdbus started development.

It didn't, it was merged in 2015, a year after or so. No, staging doesn't count, it's a dumping ground for all sort of things that do not see the light of day.

> Also, I still don't see what kind of races

Just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there. Do some research and you'll see it.

link
bheadmaster 747 days ago
> Just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there. Do some research and you'll see it.

You're the one claiming there are races when starting services, so it's your responsibility to justify that claim.

You've mentioned before that "If userspace implements the bus, then only the half of userspace that comes up after the daemon can use it", but any service manager that supports service dependencies could be configured to run the bus first, and only run the rest of the userspace after the bus is up.

link
blucaz 747 days ago
What a genius idea, how bizarre that nobody ever thought about that before! We just need to get the bus dependencies up first and then... oh. Oh wait. Oh no.
link
p_l 748 days ago
> It didn't, it was merged in 2015, a year after or so. No, staging doesn't count, it's a dumping ground for all sort of things that do not see the light of day.

kdbus didn't even make it into staging. Project mainline put in some serious work to get where it got.

And quite probably part of it going better was not insisting on becoming mandatory solution for everyone. If anything, it might have been less "wheelbarrows of cash" and more conflicts involving kdbus principal developer and Linus.

> Just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there. Do some research and you'll see it.

The kdbus docs could do better job declaring why it's needed then.

link
blucaz 747 days ago
> kdbus didn't even make it into staging. Project mainline put in some serious work to get where it got. > > And quite probably part of it going better was not insisting on becoming mandatory solution for everyone. If anything, it might have been less "wheelbarrows of cash" and more conflicts involving kdbus principal developer and Linus.

You mean, because it would actually be _used_ somewhere in open source distributions (that is, not just deep inside some de-facto proprietary half-closed-source fork owned by a single mega-corp)? Yeah when things are hidden away in some cupboard in the basement it's much easier not to ruffle feathers. But yeah the LKML is bad today, but back then it was a veritable open-air cesspool

> The kdbus docs could do better job declaring why it's needed then.

Well, it's dead, so what's the point...

link
p_l 747 days ago
I mean it would be forced down the throat, which wasn't making proponents any friends when their other actions culminated in Red Hat being temporarily banned from having any code merged into kernel.

As for documentation...

Maybe that's part of why it's dead and buried.

link