Correct me if I am wrong here, but the objective of dbus/ipc is to vastly simplify programming -- suppose you need to write a program which opens document in gedit as one of the steps.... He doesn't need to know about the command line flags of gedit.By having a single interface like dbus, it simplifies his task. Also one more thing, ipc interface like dbus is preserved across versions, whereas the cli flags can change. It is more like interface in object technology where interface remains same but underlying implementation can change(and shouldn't matter to you). I think dbus brings all those OOPs to larger level. I largely think people here are also OOP vs normal procedural (or C vs C++). It is like C++ is slower than C(but there is some advantage also) On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 19:49 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote: >> and if you're really unlucky you get dbus to crash hal to crash your >> gfx >> driver, so your only option left is the power button. > > Please don't post things you haven't looked into. Hal has nothing to do > with your gfx driver, as gfx drivers are probed by xorg itself using the > libpciaccess library. The only things managed by hal/dbus in xorg are > input devices. > >
