| 1 |
Am Sonntag 18 September 2011, 11:23:43 schrieb pk: |
| 2 |
> On 2011-09-18 09:37, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 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 |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
years ago? is gnome even using dbus for years? They had their broken |
| 42 |
corba/orbit/bonobo stuff. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
And what is your problem with dbus anyway? I bet you can't even measure a |
| 45 |
difference between dbus running and dbus not running in speed or |
| 46 |
responsiveness of your gui. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
#163933 |
Archives