| 1 |
On 19/11/2016 22:47, Ian Zimmerman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2016-11-19 14:16, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Presumably if you sent a dbus message to your service manager asking |
| 5 |
>> it to start a daemon that doesn't count as being behind your back. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I did not - some program which I never heard of but is part of the DE du |
| 8 |
> jour did, without any explicit configuration to do so. Typically when |
| 9 |
> loading some library which I never heard of, also part of said DE, for |
| 10 |
> the first time. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I hope you agree this is very different from daemons started by init |
| 13 |
> (whatever flavor). |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I do not agree. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The big two DE's start dbus because the developers write code that needs |
| 20 |
it. There is no explicit config to start it in the form of "dbus=yes" in |
| 21 |
kde.conf because it is required. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
init starts a whole bunch of stuff. It's all terribly mysterious until |
| 24 |
you read the relevant docs, at which point it ceases to be so mysterious |
| 25 |
and becomes knowledge. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Same with everything KDE, Gnome et al do that you are complaining about. |
| 28 |
It's only worth complaining about being mysterious because you have not |
| 29 |
yet studied them and understand them. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Yes I know init and KDE are very very different beasts from different |
| 32 |
eras with different approaches to getting stuff done and so can appear |
| 33 |
completely different. But within the contact of /this/ thread, they are |
| 34 |
very similar. And you don't understand one of them to anything like the |
| 35 |
same standard you understand the other. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 40 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives