The/proc interface is a mess from the format point of view: there is no standard; each file can use his own formatting. The/sys interface is a bit better, but not everything is into it, and the "cross linked tree" structure can be difficult to handle.
You can see the kernel as a process. Or you can see the various kernel threads as processes. Don't be limited by a such pointless wording issue. There always was a big requirement for communication between parts of the kernel and some applications. The "everything is a file" was a really good design decision that proved to be adequate in a lot of situations. But there is more and more others situations that need features that the "everything is a file" design can't provides efficiently. IPC is one of them.
Just look at the numbers of IPC that exists and there evolution to realize that a simple file is clearly not an appropriate solution. Now try to count how many formats are used for communication with the Linux kernel. There is certainly an advantage to reduce the number of them if a common protocol can handle them in a good way.
Developers have no ideas of the real requirements and demands of systems engineers, administrators, network specialisty or users.
For proprietary code managed by dummies, maybe. But the Linux community developers count a lot of systems engineers, administrators, network specialists, and users that are code in the kernel precisely because there want to make it better at handling there real requirements and demands. You are free to do the same if you think that you can improve Linux for your need.
I am a user, an admin of a few systems, and an engineer of a numbers of systems. And I am really very happy by the KDBUS and systemd move.
Not only there are technically good, but I hope that others concurrent projects will fork this common code base and start talking together what will be valuable to merge, instead of creating a yet another pointless unconnected project that will never gain enough audience to change anything but increasing the number of choice problems for a lot of distributions.
You forgot that Linux was created precisely because there was no truly open UNIX running on a PC a his time. Even 386BSD arrived after Linux started to gain a growing community. The Linux community always tried a lot of different approach, and this is the reason why it is do dominant today.
But I agree that Linux is more and more a norm by itself and that his UNIX part is slowly mutating into a simple compatibility interface layer. I am not even surprised about that since UNIX was created at his time for hardware and application that are really out of the focus of the today market needs. The fact that the UNIX API last so long prove that it was a very good design, but this design don't include today hardware and application that was just pure fiction when it was created.
Comparing a KDBUS to a JPEG or a PNG decoders ? Try instead to compare the Linux KDBUS code to the Linux TCP/IP stack...
Seriously, the Linux kernel is only bloated by the fact that it need thousands of drivers to handle decades of hardware diarrhea that released incompatibles devices as fast rate. Certainly not by the KDBUS code.
I good reason is the future possibility to manage kernel features in a more formal way than with the/proc or/sys interfaces.
It has taken about a decade to bring a standard IPC protocol to Linux. I mean a protocol that truly work between applications from different team of developers.It's now time to use it from a wider audience. Making it part of the kernel not only make it a bit more fast, but it clearly make it a more appealing choice for applications that need IPC.
For Brazil it's better to have a Gripen with a full control of his maintenance, than having a USA fighter with a political dependency for his maintenance. The question is not to have the best fighter, the question is to have a fighter that are operational in any political situation.
No even need of a hidden software. A government can force to reduce the maintenance from the manufacturer. This is why the Brazil want a full technology transfer.
I understand that you have doubts. But is there really an other solution ? Did you really think that the current situation will last for ever ? Two century ago, the French people mind was very different regarding how the government should work.
Yes, part of the solution for more fair distribution is to bound some market to there own location. Actually saying this is a scandal as we was bombarded by idea of global free market where no one should protect his place. "Stay in nicely in place, we just get the money..." A global market is appropriate where some resources exist only into some location. The odd thing is that the poverty is actually a resource for the business. More poor are the peoples, more likely there will accept low salary.
I don't believe that France will throw the EU treaties anytime soon, but the EU will probably have to evolve. The tragic fact is that citizens of each counties almost don't have any right in the EU politic. I suspect the this will not change unless the citizens get the control of there own government first and then make pressure to change the EU rules. The Switzerland would have been a EU land long time ago if his citizens will have not be able to disapprove the government wish. Now since we are almost alone in this situation the EU is increasingly using the force to impose anything to the Switzerland. The situation is a deadlock, as Swiss citizen clearly known that if we are part of the EU, our small size will make our voice not even considered alone, so this not even an option. I don't known why others countries are so afraid about the idea of a new version of the EU treaties. This kind of complex relationship will never be static. It need to evolve quickly and not only to satisfy the wish of a few. Current political situation in many countries, including France, could be the beginning of a new system if a majority of citizen will realize that there political system could evolve instead of spinning around the current system. After all, France changed his republic system many times to adapt to new situations. From my point of view, the question is not if this evolution is required, but how this evolution could emerge in the current situation.
And yes migrants is the symptom of some problem, but also a cause of others problems. But the flow is actually inverted ! Normally peoples leave bad economic place for better one. What's odd actually is that there is a substantial flow of migrants that go into countries already in bad condition, making the whole situation even worse. Don't get my wrong, I have nothing against migrants when this correspond to some logic. I have migrants in my own family and I might maybe have to migrate someday if required to do so. This is usually a risky decision, and you better have to get the rights information to minimize the risk. Now there are an increasing quantity of migrants that have taken there decision based on very wrong information, because this is a lucrative business for some escrows that claim to "help" them.
I have no missed the point. You must realize that the law enforced minimum wage is just barely survivable and represent a hug fall the life level of natives that lost there jobs.
I think you make some confusion between the global and local market. A local market is highly dependent to the size of the population, and to a lower level to the global competition, this is the contrary for the global market. Now, in depressing (or almost so) situation, there is no reason to grow the size of a population as there is a lower amount of money moving in the country, so sharing it with a increasing number of peoples will only slash down the average level. Migrants is a normal process when there is a lack of peoples in a growing economy, not when when the economy is in recession where there is already too many peoples out of jobs.
The actual situation in EU is that globally a lot of countries endure economic trouble. The situation is politely ignored by the peoples that still enjoy a good situation, assumed almost like a fatality by the peoples that have lost there life level but still have something that feed there basic needs, but there are a increasing number of peoples that panic because either there have lost almost anything or there are young and don't see any place for there future. This last category is the most likely to do migration in the hope the find a better life somewhere. This make the global economic pressure exporting the problem of each counties to the others counties. This is a catastrophe. This is like a ship without any confinement: the panic is everywhere instead of concentrating in a few place where the water must be pumped. This very odd effect in the actual situation is that the size of the population still increase in counties that are in recession. I really don't see how this could not be see as a major problem in the future. Migration is a good process in situation where it improve the life, not when it make it worse.
Sure, and that fear is easy to trigger. But you think about it, this is not the current situation : people do not loose their jobs because of migrants. They loose their jobs because free trade make them compete with workers from foreign countries, with lower wages, environmental regulations and social regulations. Add that investors now want ROI of 18%, and austerity that cuts local investment by government, and you have the recipe for disaster.
Actually it's a multiple stage problem. You are right that the free trade global market make the competition harder and cause jobs loss. Peoples that loss there jobs try to find a new one at the same level, but especially as the years pass, this is increasingly difficult. There are many situation in a live where you might better choose a lower job instead of nothing. This is also true for young new on the market. A lot of lower jobs are in the local services, where the global competition is do not apply directly because it make sense only at the location where the demand is. In this kind of lower jobs, there is a lot of competition with migrants that seek a better life and accept wages sometimes so low that a is barely survivable. On the higher jobs the situation is not so good either, as it's way cheaper to hire a already highly qualified migrant than pay formation to the native. And because migrants are cheaper, this look good for the business, despite the fact that it increase the cost of sustaining natives without jobs. The process is a so big loop that it allow each entities involved to reject the responsibility to the others. There is no advance in pointing out only a part of the loop, it must be globally understand, and unfortunately this is not easy.
I think that the main cause of fear it the fact that many visible consequences of this infernal loop are increasingly visible since the last two decades and that almost no government have succeeded in changing the trend. This is dramatic, especially for government that present itself as a the highest conscience of the nation, with he best experts on any matter, and that still do not yield credible changes in practice. How could the peoples not having some fear when there believe in there country and have the feeling that the future will only be darker, despite many different governments that promised and tried to change that ? The frustrated peoples still have the right to vote, and will try anything with there right until there see some result.
Now the new trend to overcome this, at least in Switzerland, is to give the right to vote to all migrants. Yet an other cleaver strategy from the business to lower the ratio of frustrated natives when there vote. There is really no sentiment from the business, only money. There simply wants to perpetually replace people by cheaper more qualified peoples, regardless of the origin. In some respect this a global perpetual economic war everywhere. Why asking all the peoples that are rejected from the system to be nice with gentle sentiments ? The talk about the migrants is flawed: the socialists and the capitalists, all agree that the migrants are not the problem but not for the same reasons: the first because there wants an open country with multiple culture and nice integration, the second because there wants cheap and qualified jobs. There just forget that there is a growing citizen that don't buy there argument. It's easy to deny the problem by saying that the cause is only the fear of migrants. The reality is far more complex, and is unlikely to get an improvement as long as it is not addressed properly on many different points of the loop.
Yes there are others parties, but are there relevant compared to the biggest parties ? It's curious that you link the fear, the immigration, and the finance.
Every party use the fear for some purpose (loss of jobs, loss of ecosystems, loss of social care, not enough energy, etc...) The immigration is a increasing concern in a lot of countries where the economy is problematic. The pragmatic reality in a bad economic situation is that the native that lost there jobs will not accept easily to compete with migrants for a cheap job. Since the native have the right to vote, this have some political implication. No need of fear to explain the situation. The financial is yet an another subject that also see a growing concern in many countries since the last couple of crisis. Almost all politics have plan to introduce a new financial regulation, but as today the effective change are minimal.
Now each parties might propose solutions than every citizens might found valuable on a subject and no on an other subject. This is why this is so important to let the citizens vote on each subject separately. If you are free to vote for the solution you like for each subject regardless from witch party this solution cam, you don't depend anymore on the government. This is the direct democracy principle that force the parties to only propose solutions to the citizens, but at the end, the citizens chose freely.
Your conclusion is correct. I personally try to differentiate the system used by the politic from the work done by the politic. Yet the confusion is easy as the evolution of the political system is also a political work... Each system yield different work result. I suspect that the evolution of a political system is one of the subject hat the most afraid politician and citizens, certainly because of the fear of the unknown. Unfortunately the history back this observation as a lot of changes in political system was the result of some violent event.
You are right, the decentralization is a powerful tool to avoid power concentration. I think that the proportional representation play a big role in the way the Swiss politic is decentralized. As each relevant parties are represented up to the highest position, this make unlikely the risk that a region will be frustrated by some dogmatic movement.
One of the last year vote was interesting as the peoples from 24 cantons voted a construction limitation that will be known to deeply affect only 2 cantons that clearly abused on that matter. At some point the two have to ponder that the way there abused frustrate a lot of others cantons and that this might have effect on all the help there got from them, but there refused to see that. The vote by the all the Swiss citizen ended the case in a interesting way as this was the peoples that voted, not the government, nor the cantons, so the losers can't blame the government, not the others cantons. This was a big chock for some peoples from the 2 cantons to understand that there made so much peoples angry before, as there usually blamed only the government to be too strong with them. There discovered that the government negotiation with them was truly a real concern from the vast majority of the others citizens. The negotiation failed, so the citizens used there power.
Technically France is still a democracy, even if it's just for a few election and very rarely to vote on a real subject. But in perfectly understand your point of view, as the gaps between the people and the government is visibly increasing in the last decade. Interestingly, this is precisely the main cause of the FN party growing...
Now how this can be in the future ? If the FN (or at least there main subjects) are still ignored by the leading parties, all will probably face more and more problem in the election process because the multiple round process will end up with only 2 candidates for 3 parties, resulting in about 2/3 of citizens frustrated by the winner. At this stage the result is almost randomized by how the people for the ejected party of the last round will report there vote. It not nice to notice that on the last round about 1/3 of the vote are from frustrated peoples regardless of there last choice.
My point is that with the election of a single party, the frustration grow proportionally to the number of big parties, so it tend to stabilize to have only 2 big parties on a democratic system, and to only a unique party on more dictatorial system where the frustration is denied by the repression. It's maybe more a mathematical problem that a political problem.
Slashdot Mirror
There is DBUS tools to inspect the messages bus. Probably that your issue will be nothing different with an other IPC.
The /proc interface is a mess from the format point of view: there is no standard; each file can use his own formatting. /sys interface is a bit better, but not everything is into it, and the "cross linked tree" structure can be difficult to handle.
The
You can see the kernel as a process. Or you can see the various kernel threads as processes. Don't be limited by a such pointless wording issue. There always was a big requirement for communication between parts of the kernel and some applications. The "everything is a file" was a really good design decision that proved to be adequate in a lot of situations. But there is more and more others situations that need features that the "everything is a file" design can't provides efficiently. IPC is one of them.
Just look at the numbers of IPC that exists and there evolution to realize that a simple file is clearly not an appropriate solution. Now try to count how many formats are used for communication with the Linux kernel. There is certainly an advantage to reduce the number of them if a common protocol can handle them in a good way.
You maybe have a service sending a lot of DBUS messages, because usually a dbus-daemon is very very low in processing time.
root# uptime /usr/bin/dbus-daemon --fork --print-pid 5 --print-address 7 --session /usr/bin/dbus-daemon --system
00:18:50 up 17 days, 10:15, 9 users, load average: 0.25, 0.35, 0.39
root# ps -C dbus-daemon fw
PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND
4616 ? Ss 0:12
2508 ? Ss 0:04
Yes, and also because he is not alone at wanting DBUS in the kernel.
Developers have no ideas of the real requirements and demands of systems engineers, administrators, network specialisty or users.
For proprietary code managed by dummies, maybe. But the Linux community developers count a lot of systems engineers, administrators, network specialists, and users that are code in the kernel precisely because there want to make it better at handling there real requirements and demands. You are free to do the same if you think that you can improve Linux for your need.
I am a user, an admin of a few systems, and an engineer of a numbers of systems.
And I am really very happy by the KDBUS and systemd move.
Not only there are technically good, but I hope that others concurrent projects will fork this common code base and start talking together what will be valuable to merge, instead of creating a yet another pointless unconnected project that will never gain enough audience to change anything but increasing the number of choice problems for a lot of distributions.
You forgot that Linux was created precisely because there was no truly open UNIX running on a PC a his time. Even 386BSD arrived after Linux started to gain a growing community. The Linux community always tried a lot of different approach, and this is the reason why it is do dominant today.
But I agree that Linux is more and more a norm by itself and that his UNIX part is slowly mutating into a simple compatibility interface layer. I am not even surprised about that since UNIX was created at his time for hardware and application that are really out of the focus of the today market needs. The fact that the UNIX API last so long prove that it was a very good design, but this design don't include today hardware and application that was just pure fiction when it was created.
Good luck if you try for example to use Bluetooth or Avahi without D-BUS...
Seems like the primary use of D-BUS is for the desktop components, which already abuse/overuse inter-process communication.
DBUS is already used on a number of embedded projects since many years.
Comparing a KDBUS to a JPEG or a PNG decoders ?
Try instead to compare the Linux KDBUS code to the Linux TCP/IP stack...
Seriously, the Linux kernel is only bloated by the fact that it need thousands of drivers to handle decades of hardware diarrhea that released incompatibles devices as fast rate. Certainly not by the KDBUS code.
I good reason is the future possibility to manage kernel features in a more formal way than with the /proc or /sys interfaces.
It has taken about a decade to bring a standard IPC protocol to Linux. I mean a protocol that truly work between applications from different team of developers.It's now time to use it from a wider audience. Making it part of the kernel not only make it a bit more fast, but it clearly make it a more appealing choice for applications that need IPC.
One more reason to do a full technology transfer.
For Brazil it's better to have a Gripen with a full control of his maintenance, than having a USA fighter with a political dependency for his maintenance. The question is not to have the best fighter, the question is to have a fighter that are operational in any political situation.
No even need of a hidden software. A government can force to reduce the maintenance from the manufacturer. This is why the Brazil want a full technology transfer.
Just asking.
I am not drunk, but I don't speak English !
This make the same result, you will say...
... there don't want to be vulnerable to others agencies like them !
I understand that you have doubts. But is there really an other solution ?
Did you really think that the current situation will last for ever ?
Two century ago, the French people mind was very different regarding how the government should work.
Yes, part of the solution for more fair distribution is to bound some market to there own location. Actually saying this is a scandal as we was bombarded by idea of global free market where no one should protect his place. "Stay in nicely in place, we just get the money..." A global market is appropriate where some resources exist only into some location. The odd thing is that the poverty is actually a resource for the business. More poor are the peoples, more likely there will accept low salary.
I don't believe that France will throw the EU treaties anytime soon, but the EU will probably have to evolve. The tragic fact is that citizens of each counties almost don't have any right in the EU politic. I suspect the this will not change unless the citizens get the control of there own government first and then make pressure to change the EU rules. The Switzerland would have been a EU land long time ago if his citizens will have not be able to disapprove the government wish. Now since we are almost alone in this situation the EU is increasingly using the force to impose anything to the Switzerland. The situation is a deadlock, as Swiss citizen clearly known that if we are part of the EU, our small size will make our voice not even considered alone, so this not even an option. I don't known why others countries are so afraid about the idea of a new version of the EU treaties. This kind of complex relationship will never be static. It need to evolve quickly and not only to satisfy the wish of a few. Current political situation in many countries, including France, could be the beginning of a new system if a majority of citizen will realize that there political system could evolve instead of spinning around the current system. After all, France changed his republic system many times to adapt to new situations. From my point of view, the question is not if this evolution is required, but how this evolution could emerge in the current situation.
Your are right. And this why I don't use the GDP in my text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product#Limitations_and_Criticisms
Basically, the GDP don't take the distribution difference into account.
Pragmatically, I don't see France actually claiming that there economy is in a good condition.
And yes migrants is the symptom of some problem, but also a cause of others problems. But the flow is actually inverted ! Normally peoples leave bad economic place for better one. What's odd actually is that there is a substantial flow of migrants that go into countries already in bad condition, making the whole situation even worse. Don't get my wrong, I have nothing against migrants when this correspond to some logic. I have migrants in my own family and I might maybe have to migrate someday if required to do so. This is usually a risky decision, and you better have to get the rights information to minimize the risk. Now there are an increasing quantity of migrants that have taken there decision based on very wrong information, because this is a lucrative business for some escrows that claim to "help" them.
I have no missed the point. You must realize that the law enforced minimum wage is just barely survivable and represent a hug fall the life level of natives that lost there jobs.
I think you make some confusion between the global and local market. A local market is highly dependent to the size of the population, and to a lower level to the global competition, this is the contrary for the global market. Now, in depressing (or almost so) situation, there is no reason to grow the size of a population as there is a lower amount of money moving in the country, so sharing it with a increasing number of peoples will only slash down the average level. Migrants is a normal process when there is a lack of peoples in a growing economy, not when when the economy is in recession where there is already too many peoples out of jobs.
The actual situation in EU is that globally a lot of countries endure economic trouble. The situation is politely ignored by the peoples that still enjoy a good situation, assumed almost like a fatality by the peoples that have lost there life level but still have something that feed there basic needs, but there are a increasing number of peoples that panic because either there have lost almost anything or there are young and don't see any place for there future. This last category is the most likely to do migration in the hope the find a better life somewhere. This make the global economic pressure exporting the problem of each counties to the others counties. This is a catastrophe. This is like a ship without any confinement: the panic is everywhere instead of concentrating in a few place where the water must be pumped. This very odd effect in the actual situation is that the size of the population still increase in counties that are in recession. I really don't see how this could not be see as a major problem in the future. Migration is a good process in situation where it improve the life, not when it make it worse.
Sure, and that fear is easy to trigger. But you think about it, this is not the current situation : people do not loose their jobs because of migrants. They loose their jobs because free trade make them compete with workers from foreign countries, with lower wages, environmental regulations and social regulations. Add that investors now want ROI of 18%, and austerity that cuts local investment by government, and you have the recipe for disaster.
Actually it's a multiple stage problem. You are right that the free trade global market make the competition harder and cause jobs loss. Peoples that loss there jobs try to find a new one at the same level, but especially as the years pass, this is increasingly difficult. There are many situation in a live where you might better choose a lower job instead of nothing. This is also true for young new on the market. A lot of lower jobs are in the local services, where the global competition is do not apply directly because it make sense only at the location where the demand is. In this kind of lower jobs, there is a lot of competition with migrants that seek a better life and accept wages sometimes so low that a is barely survivable. On the higher jobs the situation is not so good either, as it's way cheaper to hire a already highly qualified migrant than pay formation to the native. And because migrants are cheaper, this look good for the business, despite the fact that it increase the cost of sustaining natives without jobs. The process is a so big loop that it allow each entities involved to reject the responsibility to the others. There is no advance in pointing out only a part of the loop, it must be globally understand, and unfortunately this is not easy.
I think that the main cause of fear it the fact that many visible consequences of this infernal loop are increasingly visible since the last two decades and that almost no government have succeeded in changing the trend. This is dramatic, especially for government that present itself as a the highest conscience of the nation, with he best experts on any matter, and that still do not yield credible changes in practice. How could the peoples not having some fear when there believe in there country and have the feeling that the future will only be darker, despite many different governments that promised and tried to change that ? The frustrated peoples still have the right to vote, and will try anything with there right until there see some result.
Now the new trend to overcome this, at least in Switzerland, is to give the right to vote to all migrants. Yet an other cleaver strategy from the business to lower the ratio of frustrated natives when there vote. There is really no sentiment from the business, only money. There simply wants to perpetually replace people by cheaper more qualified peoples, regardless of the origin. In some respect this a global perpetual economic war everywhere. Why asking all the peoples that are rejected from the system to be nice with gentle sentiments ? The talk about the migrants is flawed: the socialists and the capitalists, all agree that the migrants are not the problem but not for the same reasons: the first because there wants an open country with multiple culture and nice integration, the second because there wants cheap and qualified jobs. There just forget that there is a growing citizen that don't buy there argument. It's easy to deny the problem by saying that the cause is only the fear of migrants. The reality is far more complex, and is unlikely to get an improvement as long as it is not addressed properly on many different points of the loop.
Yes there are others parties, but are there relevant compared to the biggest parties ?
It's curious that you link the fear, the immigration, and the finance.
Every party use the fear for some purpose (loss of jobs, loss of ecosystems, loss of social care, not enough energy, etc...)
The immigration is a increasing concern in a lot of countries where the economy is problematic. The pragmatic reality in a bad economic situation is that the native that lost there jobs will not accept easily to compete with migrants for a cheap job. Since the native have the right to vote, this have some political implication. No need of fear to explain the situation.
The financial is yet an another subject that also see a growing concern in many countries since the last couple of crisis. Almost all politics have plan to introduce a new financial regulation, but as today the effective change are minimal.
Now each parties might propose solutions than every citizens might found valuable on a subject and no on an other subject. This is why this is so important to let the citizens vote on each subject separately. If you are free to vote for the solution you like for each subject regardless from witch party this solution cam, you don't depend anymore on the government. This is the direct democracy principle that force the parties to only propose solutions to the citizens, but at the end, the citizens chose freely.
Your conclusion is correct. I personally try to differentiate the system used by the politic from the work done by the politic. Yet the confusion is easy as the evolution of the political system is also a political work... Each system yield different work result. I suspect that the evolution of a political system is one of the subject hat the most afraid politician and citizens, certainly because of the fear of the unknown. Unfortunately the history back this observation as a lot of changes in political system was the result of some violent event.
You are right, the decentralization is a powerful tool to avoid power concentration. I think that the proportional representation play a big role in the way the Swiss politic is decentralized. As each relevant parties are represented up to the highest position, this make unlikely the risk that a region will be frustrated by some dogmatic movement.
One of the last year vote was interesting as the peoples from 24 cantons voted a construction limitation that will be known to deeply affect only 2 cantons that clearly abused on that matter. At some point the two have to ponder that the way there abused frustrate a lot of others cantons and that this might have effect on all the help there got from them, but there refused to see that. The vote by the all the Swiss citizen ended the case in a interesting way as this was the peoples that voted, not the government, nor the cantons, so the losers can't blame the government, not the others cantons. This was a big chock for some peoples from the 2 cantons to understand that there made so much peoples angry before, as there usually blamed only the government to be too strong with them. There discovered that the government negotiation with them was truly a real concern from the vast majority of the others citizens. The negotiation failed, so the citizens used there power.
Technically France is still a democracy, even if it's just for a few election and very rarely to vote on a real subject. But in perfectly understand your point of view, as the gaps between the people and the government is visibly increasing in the last decade. Interestingly, this is precisely the main cause of the FN party growing...
Now how this can be in the future ? If the FN (or at least there main subjects) are still ignored by the leading parties, all will probably face more and more problem in the election process because the multiple round process will end up with only 2 candidates for 3 parties, resulting in about 2/3 of citizens frustrated by the winner. At this stage the result is almost randomized by how the people for the ejected party of the last round will report there vote. It not nice to notice that on the last round about 1/3 of the vote are from frustrated peoples regardless of there last choice.
My point is that with the election of a single party, the frustration grow proportionally to the number of big parties, so it tend to stabilize to have only 2 big parties on a democratic system, and to only a unique party on more dictatorial system where the frustration is denied by the repression. It's maybe more a mathematical problem that a political problem.