From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NfheB-00047A-DR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:36:31 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 92632E0BB6; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:36:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f216.google.com (mail-ew0-f216.google.com [209.85.219.216]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57DC0E0BB6 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:36:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so2002651ewy.29 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:36:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:content-type:to:subject :references:date:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:from :message-id:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=RTjjjhbgOdA0cL+V5U24980JWIQ8Xta4l5hxP5z69bM=; b=i8tZXqqXuE1AVO+aT80cAocTg+vrj7xsiRl7lgL+Y4tUE5Z6mAtMpgSuvTIBLWGZxG tSLvWJxFJCPXuHZmPHRFZx2GdO66SMqGoEHhNSk+eGMjgmFqvHK9EpcxU9St7aZy0HfG 8p1S5+E8jy7uAAnOVJPt+V3X+uN0rnq4CRZr8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=content-type:to:subject:references:date:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:from:message-id:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=oP1y/Lci2GbyxKWZsmp62tkMnoTpS/qOhsnu4SF685edrIjvFPd/4tyvWFinu17fHz rb8b/+e4TGhofDUaeViWENdi0lnT3j70usyjjBHk9hnr7JO19qDHf2f2pIbQNHjvS/wQ XMFWbyJSQE097ovCUIlDlR5DQSsqbjVOdJqVM= Received: by 10.213.54.13 with SMTP id o13mr1122809ebg.68.1265927772704; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:36:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from zeerak (0110ds1-abc.0.fullrate.dk [90.185.49.13]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm6900490eyg.44.2010.02.11.14.36.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:36:12 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] How the HAL are you supposed to use these files? References: <20100208222047.GA6553@muc.de> <201002111005.46531.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> <201002120013.14686.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:35:10 +0100 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Zeerak Waseem" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201002120013.14686.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.10 (Linux) X-Archives-Salt: ebabf55e-4216-4d59-8105-96159fb1cdeb X-Archives-Hash: 3a8f60a719ac4b55c8e2a6d5016e1634 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:13:14 +0100, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Thursday 11 February 2010 23:40:37 Zeerak Waseem wrote: >> True, but even those using Openbox, icewm, etc. were introduced to the >> mess that HAL is, and also to dbus. Sure you can choose not to have >> hal/dbus/*kit, but then you also choose not to use a growing number of >> apps that seem to depend on it. The way I see it, they should be >> optional >> features. If you've got the useflags set, great. If not, then it'll >> still >> be able to compile and run. > > And what exactly is the problem with dbus? At 2MB, it's one of the > smallest > apps on my notebook. It's memory usage is miniscule, I have to invoke > magic to > get it to show up in top. > > All I hear from the anti-dbus crowd is complaints "that it's there" and > not a > single shred of evidence, fact or numbers anywhere to back up why it > might be > a bad thing. > > Let's rather all sit down and add up the the potential code and resource > REDUCTION from dbus due to duplicated functionality being removed from > multiple apps. > Complaints that reduce to "it's there now and it wasn't there before" > cannot > be valid for that reason alone - inotify is there now and wasn't there > before, > the resource reduction from it's being added is miniscule compared to the > amount of polling we now do not have to do. Many other examples exist. > > hal is different and in a category of it's own; it's resource usage is > very > small but the developer screwed up by making it complex for users (for > the > machine it's actually quite simple). We can fix that, and are - udev. I > don't > see anyone complaining about it being there now and not being there > before. > Anyone remember what came before udev? Who remembers trying to figure out > devfs? Or MKNODE? > > Do keep in mind that even simple WMs use some form of IPC (well, maybe > twm > doesn't). The dev has various schemes he can use from pipes on the > command > line to named pipes and fifos, or he can use a message bus. > > Personally, I'd go with the latter even if only becuase somebody else > with a > proven track record is maintaining it (so I don't have to) > > Oh there's not much of a problem with dbus to be quite honest. But that perhaps is a bit of the point, that dbus seems like it might be, as someone else put it, a "solution-in-search-of-a-problem". I can see why it can be smart, but I can also see why it's labeled as a bit useless. Particularly when your wm can handle all the inter-app communication that is necessary without dbus. Like said, I don't particularly mind it for DE's but if you choose a wm, often you are willingly choosing to be lacking a few things that a DE does. I think that the issue for the "anti-dbus crowd" is that it's something that is being forced on them, despite having no need of it. -- Zeerak