| 1 |
On Tue 23 August 2011 18:17:17 Stroller did opine thusly: |
| 2 |
> On 23 August 2011, at 07:27, Joost Roeleveld wrote: |
| 3 |
> > ... |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >> * found this blog-entry against systemd: |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> http://monolight.cc/2011/05/the-systemd-fallacy/ |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> I agree, it might be more useful on desktops ... so far I am |
| 10 |
> >> still exploring and learning to get to the point to make a |
| 11 |
> >> decision where and if to use. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > I think it is more useful on desktops and laptops, which get |
| 14 |
> > rebooted regularly. On a server that tends to run for months |
| 15 |
> > without a reboot, a fast init-system is important. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > And I don't really see the point of D-BUS on a server either. |
| 18 |
> > All the services that need to talk to each other already have |
| 19 |
> > working communication paths. |
| 20 |
> Reading that blog entry I found discouraging the idea that dbus |
| 21 |
> might be required on my servers in the future, if systemd becomes |
| 22 |
> popular with distros. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
What's your objection to dbus? It gives you a standard message bus, is |
| 25 |
small, light, consumes minimal resources and provides a nice standard |
| 26 |
way to do IPC. Probably easier than reinventing the wheel with named |
| 27 |
pipes and other bits over and over. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Now if it had similarities to say hal, I would instantly understand. |
| 30 |
But dbus is good and useful in all the ways that hal isn't. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives