On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 11:29:51AM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote: > Mechanisms have existed for like 20 years before dbus to communicate > with other programs. dbus is just another way to do it that has a > smell of "architecture astronomy" - as if they all scoffed at the > actual ways to do IPC on various Unicies and said "Oh, I can design > better". > > That's why I dislike it. I agree, and there is more. - It uses glib types instead of the plain C ones. So it smells GNOME from the start. Why should an app that has nothing to do with GNOME be forced to use its headers ? - It uses XML configuration, no system tool should do that - it's bloated, ugly, and in most cases impossible to read. No system tool should depend on the presence of XML libraries. - It is being abused in major ways. Any app that uses it to 'enhance the user experience' should be able to work without it just doing its core function, but in almost all cases things are not implemented that way. The latter is part of a culture that dictates that everything should be automatic and based on what 'most' users prefer. Could be, but that is no reason to force these things on those who don't want them. And in almost all cases it is impossible to change this behaviour, any attempt at manaul configuration is viewed as an attack on the system. That said, dbus is probably one of the minor evils originating at freedesktop.org. The Kit family is much worse. Ciao, -- FA
