Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Zeerak Waseem <zeerak.w@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] How the HAL are you supposed to use these files?
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:36:31
Message-Id: op.u7zicwntagyv58@zeerak
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] How the HAL are you supposed to use these files? by Alan McKinnon
1 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:13:14 +0100, Alan McKinnon
2 <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote:
3
4 > On Thursday 11 February 2010 23:40:37 Zeerak Waseem wrote:
5 >> True, but even those using Openbox, icewm, etc. were introduced to the
6 >> mess that HAL is, and also to dbus. Sure you can choose not to have
7 >> hal/dbus/*kit, but then you also choose not to use a growing number of
8 >> apps that seem to depend on it. The way I see it, they should be
9 >> optional
10 >> features. If you've got the useflags set, great. If not, then it'll
11 >> still
12 >> be able to compile and run.
13 >
14 > And what exactly is the problem with dbus? At 2MB, it's one of the
15 > smallest
16 > apps on my notebook. It's memory usage is miniscule, I have to invoke
17 > magic to
18 > get it to show up in top.
19 >
20 > All I hear from the anti-dbus crowd is complaints "that it's there" and
21 > not a
22 > single shred of evidence, fact or numbers anywhere to back up why it
23 > might be
24 > a bad thing.
25 >
26 > Let's rather all sit down and add up the the potential code and resource
27 > REDUCTION from dbus due to duplicated functionality being removed from
28 > multiple apps.
29 > Complaints that reduce to "it's there now and it wasn't there before"
30 > cannot
31 > be valid for that reason alone - inotify is there now and wasn't there
32 > before,
33 > the resource reduction from it's being added is miniscule compared to the
34 > amount of polling we now do not have to do. Many other examples exist.
35 >
36 > hal is different and in a category of it's own; it's resource usage is
37 > very
38 > small but the developer screwed up by making it complex for users (for
39 > the
40 > machine it's actually quite simple). We can fix that, and are - udev. I
41 > don't
42 > see anyone complaining about it being there now and not being there
43 > before.
44 > Anyone remember what came before udev? Who remembers trying to figure out
45 > devfs? Or MKNODE?
46 >
47 > Do keep in mind that even simple WMs use some form of IPC (well, maybe
48 > twm
49 > doesn't). The dev has various schemes he can use from pipes on the
50 > command
51 > line to named pipes and fifos, or he can use a message bus.
52 >
53 > Personally, I'd go with the latter even if only becuase somebody else
54 > with a
55 > proven track record is maintaining it (so I don't have to)
56 >
57 >
58
59 Oh there's not much of a problem with dbus to be quite honest. But that
60 perhaps is a bit of the point, that dbus seems like it might be, as
61 someone else put it, a "solution-in-search-of-a-problem".
62 I can see why it can be smart, but I can also see why it's labeled as a
63 bit useless. Particularly when your wm can handle all the inter-app
64 communication that is necessary without dbus.
65 Like said, I don't particularly mind it for DE's but if you choose a wm,
66 often you are willingly choosing to be lacking a few things that a DE
67 does. I think that the issue for the "anti-dbus crowd" is that it's
68 something that is being forced on them, despite having no need of it.
69
70 --
71 Zeerak

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] How the HAL are you supposed to use these files? Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-user] How the HAL are you supposed to use these files? Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>