Am Sonntag 18 September 2011, 09:15:25 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann > > <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Am Sonntag 18 September 2011, 11:23:43 schrieb pk: > >> On 2011-09-18 09:37, Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> > Other systems may start to use it if it proves itself useful. > >> > Lucky for us, it doesn't obsolete anything else, just adds > >> > functionality to what is already there. > >> > >> Although, one thing which I find very annoying is that the things that > >> depend on it starts dbus-launch/daemon no matter if I don't want to > >> run > >> it or not (it's not running acc. to rc-update show but ps -ef shows > >> both > >> dbus-launch and dbus-daemon running). I'm using Xfce4 and have > >> Audacious > >> installed which depends on dbus-glib, which of course depends on dbus > >> itself. No other packages uses it (USE= -dbus). Xfce4 and Audacious > >> hasn't used dbus before a certain version (at least it has not been > >> mandatory) and I've been using them for years (haven't had the time to > >> look for alternatives yet). > >> In general I have a problem with packages that pulls in *something* > >> which in turn depends on *something else* which in turn... overlapping > >> functionality etc. It's quite troublesome to keep, for instance, gconf > >> out of my system (masked by me to detect any "upgrades" that tries to > >> pull it in)... > >> > >> In my "world" software (in general) should not become an "obstacle"; > >> it > >> is just a tool to accomplish whatever you want it to do. Ideally the > >> OS > >> (and whatever interfaces the user) shouldn't consume _any_ resources > >> at > >> all (yes, I'm well aware that it's not possible). Resource usage > >> should > >> at least be kept to a minimum, otherwise I have to buy new faster > >> hardware for each "upgrade" (be it for security, for functionality > >> etc.) > >> and if I liked that I could just go with Windows. My whole complaint > >> about this udev business is that we're "ballooning" out of control, > >> IMO, > >> becoming the "monster" that, I assume, most of us wanted to avoid. > >> > >> PS. My animosity towards dbus is "historical"; I did use it years ago > >> (together with gnome, gconf etc.) which caused me nothing but trouble. > >> I've avoided that crap ever since. I do agree that the idea _behind_ > >> dbus seems sensible but I'm not so sure about the implementation. > >> > >> Best regards > >> > >> Peter K > > > > years ago? is gnome even using dbus for years? They had their broken > > corba/orbit/bonobo stuff. > > They used ORBit/bonobo during 1.0 and 1.2 series. With GNOME 2.0, and > when dbus got stable (1.0), they started migrating stuff to it, but > they keep bonobo around for compatibility reasons. With GNOME 3, > bonobo is completely deprecated, and everything needing IPC should use > dbus. > > Regards.
ah, didn't know that. I read about some dbus problems when KDE was moving over caused by dbus being to gnome-centric. But I never cared to much about it. -- #163933
