On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:55 PM, <fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > - 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 ? DBus as a protocol is language independent. It defines the format the types must be converted to be able to pass between applications written in different languages. The DBus library uses GLib for its main loop implementation. There's DBus in Qt, which uses the Qt main loop, I think. (though I remember from Linux Audio Users list that you don't like Qt too :)) > - 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. That's a matter of taste. I work with Java, so I'm not the ideal person to talk about XML :) I don't love it too, but it's not the worst thing of the planet. With time, you end up grasping it as you do with normal text. > - 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. That's something that should be discussed with the developers. But they probably have good reasons to use it, or they wouldn't do, isn't it? > 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. I must say that I respect your opinion and am a big fan of your programs, namely Aelous. Your technical skills are astounding and your programming experience is way bigger than mine. But I also must say that I disagree strongly with you in these paragraphs. Again, we don't need to be stuck in the past just for the sake of it. The *Kit family maybe could be replaced by a good set of ACLs, but even that can be problematic, as not all the concepts that are configured by PolicyKit or ConsoleKit are files. And the Unix security model of Users/Groups/Others is not very flexible, beyond some simple cases. -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto -------------------------------------------
