On 01/20/2015 02:24 PM, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 07:26:09PM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: >>> My guess is that the people porting from QNX were just confused >>> and their use of D-Bus was in error. Maybe they should've used >>> plain sockets, capnproto, ZeroMQ or whatever. >> >> I tend to trust that they knew what they were doing, they wouldn't have >> picked D-Bus for no good reason. > > The automotive developers I had the pleasure to work with would > use anything which is available via a mouse click in the > commercial Embedded Linux SDK IDE of their choice :) > Let's face it: QNX has a single IPC solution while Linux has > a confusing multitude of possibilities. Greg, from my spell in IVI, I too have to say your faith in the wisdom of IVI developers' choices is touching. I think D-Bus was in the main picked because it had some nice features, but then people realized it had no bandwidth, and the solution has been "make D-Bus faster", rather than "maybe we should explore other (mixed model) solutions". This isn't to say that I'm against adding kdbus, but I don't think there's much strength to the argument you make above. Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
