| 1 |
On Thursday 11 February 2010 23:40:37 Zeerak Waseem wrote: |
| 2 |
> True, but even those using Openbox, icewm, etc. were introduced to the |
| 3 |
> mess that HAL is, and also to dbus. Sure you can choose not to have |
| 4 |
> hal/dbus/*kit, but then you also choose not to use a growing number of |
| 5 |
> apps that seem to depend on it. The way I see it, they should be optional |
| 6 |
> features. If you've got the useflags set, great. If not, then it'll still |
| 7 |
> be able to compile and run. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
And what exactly is the problem with dbus? At 2MB, it's one of the smallest |
| 10 |
apps on my notebook. It's memory usage is miniscule, I have to invoke magic to |
| 11 |
get it to show up in top. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
All I hear from the anti-dbus crowd is complaints "that it's there" and not a |
| 14 |
single shred of evidence, fact or numbers anywhere to back up why it might be |
| 15 |
a bad thing. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Let's rather all sit down and add up the the potential code and resource |
| 18 |
REDUCTION from dbus due to duplicated functionality being removed from |
| 19 |
multiple apps. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Complaints that reduce to "it's there now and it wasn't there before" cannot |
| 22 |
be valid for that reason alone - inotify is there now and wasn't there before, |
| 23 |
the resource reduction from it's being added is miniscule compared to the |
| 24 |
amount of polling we now do not have to do. Many other examples exist. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
hal is different and in a category of it's own; it's resource usage is very |
| 27 |
small but the developer screwed up by making it complex for users (for the |
| 28 |
machine it's actually quite simple). We can fix that, and are - udev. I don't |
| 29 |
see anyone complaining about it being there now and not being there before. |
| 30 |
Anyone remember what came before udev? Who remembers trying to figure out |
| 31 |
devfs? Or MKNODE? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Do keep in mind that even simple WMs use some form of IPC (well, maybe twm |
| 34 |
doesn't). The dev has various schemes he can use from pipes on the command |
| 35 |
line to named pipes and fifos, or he can use a message bus. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Personally, I'd go with the latter even if only becuase somebody else with a |
| 38 |
proven track record is maintaining it (so I don't have to) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives