User bus conclusion

[Havoc Pennington]

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Havoc Pennington <hp at pobox.com> wrote:
> From an app perspective nothing is really changing here, so there
> shouldn't be API/cognitive churn. The main change is that now people
> don't have to do their own locking for hardware-accessing services as
> long as they know a particular user has claimed the hardware?
>

I think I basically don't even understand how the proposal is a dbus
proposal; it's really an OS proposal. The bus daemon doesn't care how
you configure remote access or number of permitted sessions per user
per machine.

Havoc