wayland screen locker and security in general
bacn at zhasha.com
Thu Apr 7 09:16:40 PDT 2011
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 18:04 +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> 2011/4/7 Corbin Simpson <mostawesomedude at gmail.com>:
> > 2011/4/7 Michal Suchanek <hramrach at centrum.cz>:
> >> If you have some input on awesomeness of dbus which I miss I am all
> >> ears but so far nobody could point out any advantage to me when this
> >> topic came to the table.
> >> Sure, dbus likely includes a protocol for passing around the messages
> >> but I am sure there are already dozens of protocols for serializing
> >> data into datagrams and/or pipes (which is what all communication
> >> boils down to in the end), and if the one dbus uses is in some way
> >> awesome and standing out from the crowd then the authors and
> >> proponents of dbus fail miserably at explaining that.
> > It's a de facto standard. People use it, people rely on it, people
> > expect it to be in place. This is really the other way around: *You*
> > should explain why dbus is inadequate and *you* should be suggesting
> > alternatives.
> I don't use it and I am perfectly fine.
> > Speaking of which, what are these "dozens of protocols," anyway? Can
> > you name some of them? Can you suggest why they would be better than
> > dbus for this task?
> Since Wayland is not using dbus right now and is not going to use it
> for its core protocol introducing it is superfluous.
> I was merely asking if dbus has some merits on its own. The fact that
> gnome uses it does not convince me.
> This is somewhat offtopic here so I suggest that if your further input
> relates only to how awesome dbus is you send it offlist.
I'm going to save you some time and give you the only possible argument
for not using DBus: remote wayland.
Anything other than that, nobody will listen to you as you appear to be
the last person left on the planet running a linux-based desktop without
Oh and the idea has always been to do socket discovery through DBus for
More information about the wayland-devel