Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
>> If we manage to make DBus entirely optional, the initial effort
>> of porting a Linux applications to Sugar would be greatly
>> simplified.
>
> As far as I know this is already the case. The only non standard bit
> are a couple of custom X properties.
Oh, is there a
Am 25.06.2008 um 10:49 schrieb Marco Pesenti Gritti:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:23 AM, Bernie Innocenti
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, I'd like to check if we could do anything to reduce our
>> dependence on DBus to provide basic desktop services for which
>> there are existing Freedesk
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:23 AM, Bernie Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, I'd like to check if we could do anything to reduce our
> dependence on DBus to provide basic desktop services for which
> there are existing Freedesktop standards and long established
> X conventions.
>
> If we ma
> Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
> > Again, start up time is not a problem. Etoys start up looks a bit
> > slow on XO, but that is because the DBus communication that has to be
> > done.
>
> I frequently hear DBus being accused of latency. As badly
> implemented as it might be, I can't believe a daemo
Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
> Again, start up time is not a problem. Etoys start up looks a bit
> slow on XO, but that is because the DBus communication that has to be
> done.
I frequently hear DBus being accused of latency. As badly
implemented as it might be, I can't believe a daemon relaying
a b
