| 1 |
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:43:12 +0100, Zeerak Waseem wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > That's as much crippling as simplifying. You can do without pam and |
| 4 |
> > hal by setting appropriate USE flags (I run pam-free here by |
| 5 |
> > doing just that) but D-Bus provides a standard way for applications to |
| 6 |
> > communicate with one another and removing it can stop your desktop |
| 7 |
> > working as it should. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Really? I removed dbus from my system altogether and everything seems |
| 10 |
> to be communicating fine. And according to this |
| 11 |
> (http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-810848-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-0.html) |
| 12 |
> a system should be able to communicate without dbus. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I've not read the whole thread, but this quote jumped out. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
"DBUS is just the chosen successor to DCOP and CORBA; all platforms have |
| 17 |
inter-process messaging (e.g, Distributed Objects in OSX/*STEP)." |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It is a messaging layer and nothing to do with HAL, although HAL may use |
| 20 |
it to communicate, for example to let the desktop know that a USB device |
| 21 |
has been connected or disconnected. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
While HAL is an ugly mess that should never be exposed to users, D-Bus |
| 24 |
just gets on with its job, maybe because it is not exposed to users. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little |
| 31 |
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." |
| 32 |
Benjamin Franklin |
Archives