1 |
On 2011-09-18 09:37, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Other systems may start to use it if it proves itself useful. Lucky for |
4 |
> us, it doesn't obsolete anything else, just adds functionality to what |
5 |
> is already there. |
6 |
|
7 |
Although, one thing which I find very annoying is that the things that |
8 |
depend on it starts dbus-launch/daemon no matter if I don't want to run |
9 |
it or not (it's not running acc. to rc-update show but ps -ef shows both |
10 |
dbus-launch and dbus-daemon running). I'm using Xfce4 and have Audacious |
11 |
installed which depends on dbus-glib, which of course depends on dbus |
12 |
itself. No other packages uses it (USE= -dbus). Xfce4 and Audacious |
13 |
hasn't used dbus before a certain version (at least it has not been |
14 |
mandatory) and I've been using them for years (haven't had the time to |
15 |
look for alternatives yet). |
16 |
In general I have a problem with packages that pulls in *something* |
17 |
which in turn depends on *something else* which in turn... overlapping |
18 |
functionality etc. It's quite troublesome to keep, for instance, gconf |
19 |
out of my system (masked by me to detect any "upgrades" that tries to |
20 |
pull it in)... |
21 |
|
22 |
In my "world" software (in general) should not become an "obstacle"; it |
23 |
is just a tool to accomplish whatever you want it to do. Ideally the OS |
24 |
(and whatever interfaces the user) shouldn't consume _any_ resources at |
25 |
all (yes, I'm well aware that it's not possible). Resource usage should |
26 |
at least be kept to a minimum, otherwise I have to buy new faster |
27 |
hardware for each "upgrade" (be it for security, for functionality etc.) |
28 |
and if I liked that I could just go with Windows. My whole complaint |
29 |
about this udev business is that we're "ballooning" out of control, IMO, |
30 |
becoming the "monster" that, I assume, most of us wanted to avoid. |
31 |
|
32 |
PS. My animosity towards dbus is "historical"; I did use it years ago |
33 |
(together with gnome, gconf etc.) which caused me nothing but trouble. |
34 |
I've avoided that crap ever since. I do agree that the idea _behind_ |
35 |
dbus seems sensible but I'm not so sure about the implementation. |
36 |
|
37 |
Best regards |
38 |
|
39 |
Peter K |