| 1 |
On 15/11/2016 21:23, Jorge Almeida wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Ian Zimmerman <itz@×××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 2016-11-14 23:52, Jorge Almeida wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> Good to know. I'm currently testing openbox without dbus-launch. No |
| 6 |
>>> problem yet. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Do you _know_ a reason you need dbus, at all? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> No. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> If you don't, you don't need it ;-) |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I would like to believe that. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> Typically, a lot of GUI apps have dbus as a soft dependency for the sole |
| 19 |
>> purpose of avoiding multiple instances. So starting the app for the |
| 20 |
>> second time just activates (in some general sense) the old window. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Seems harmless enough. But how did they manage to convince nearly |
| 23 |
> everybody that dbus is the best invention next to sliced bread? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
because dbus is actually a *good* thing for gui environments more than a |
| 27 |
simple window manager? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Because ONE ipc mechanism - dbus - can replace a plethora of home-grown, |
| 30 |
half-baked ipc methods that in total consume far more resources than dbus? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
dbus is a message bus, that's all it is. Simple. light, easy, gets the |
| 33 |
job done in environments where lots of bits have to chat to each other. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 39 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives