Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: A desktop environment[1] kernel wishlist | From | Bastien Nocera <> | Date | Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:55:26 +0100 |
| |
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 12:28 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On 10/21/2014 01:49 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > Hey, > > > > GNOME has had discussions with kernel developers in the past, and, > > fortunately, in some cases we were able to make headway. > > > > There are however a number of items that we still don't have solutions > > for, items that kernel developers might not realise we'd like to rely > > on, or don't know that we'd make use of if merged. > > > > I've posted this list at: > > https://wiki.gnome.org/BastienNocera/KernelWishlist > > > > Let me know on-list or off-list if you have any comments about those, so > > I can update the list. > > I don't know much about desktop environment infrastructure, but I think > the kernel probably already has a lot of what's needed for LinuxApps. > > Tools like Sandstorm [1] (shameless plug, but it's a good example here) > can already sandbox normal-ish programs, and those sandboxes can be > launched without privilege [2]. > > Why is kdbus needed?
Because it sucks less than passing fd's and using home-made protocols on top of it.
> Why are overlays better than, say, btrfs > lightweight copies here? Also, overlayfs might actually make it for 3.19.
Overlayfs works on more than just btrfs, which is useful to not rely on a particular filesystem to implement those features.
> As for childfs, I implemented procfs polling a couple years ago, but it > never went anywhere: > > http://lkml.kernel.org/g/1840e47fc4113af16989a4250d98bed62a9bce53.1354559528.git.luto@amacapital.net > > If that would help, I can try to dust it off and get it in to the kernel.
I'll pass that on to Ryan who requested this feature.
Cheers
| |