forward the dbus session?

[Peter Stuge]

Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > I guess the objection is simply that dbus is too fluffy for anyone
> > to jump on it,
> 
> Objection, or just that nobody has done it yet?

Possible objection or so..


> > but if you can provide a patch which turns out to be very
> > small and if you can demonstrate/explain how the feature is a great
> > benefit for users then it has a better chance of being included anyway.
> 
> Well, the benefit is clear to anyone who understands what DBUS is and 
> what it's good for.

My point is that we probably do not. I certainly don't. I really
dislike DBUS because it adds thousands (well, almost) of idiotic
dependencies and I can not understand wtf it is trying to accomplish.


> But in general, DBUS is the glue that binds disparate desktop 
> applications together, allowing them to send and receive signals.

I thought the kernel did that.. ;)


> It would be nice if a desktop app started on a remote machine but
> displaying to my local desktop could interact with my desktop as if
> I ran it locally.

Sure, but for the purpose of a great many it might already do that.
I wouldn't know, I don't want a desktop. But please explain with a
good example and I'm sure you'll win me over.


> Given that there have not been any strong rejections of the idea
> (yet) maybe I will spend an hour or two and hack up a patch.

Please do - and again - please explain, concretely, why it is useful,
in order to improve it's standing.

Is there DBUS on OpenBSD as well? In that case I guess the change
should go upstream rather than here.


//Peter