Alan McKinnon wrote: > Is it really so hard to understand that dbus replaces functionality THAT YOU > ALREADY HAVE MULTIPLE TIMES?
Nope. Besides, it doesn't _replace_ unix domain socket, named pipes etc.; it merely adds another layer on top of them. > dbus is a net gain - it takes multiple implementations of similar goals and > puts them in one place, reducing the duplication. > > If you haven't already spotted it, this is the same process of logic that > lead > to dynamic libraries. Do you consider dynamic libraries to be a good thing? I don't see how D-Bus would be comparable to dynamic libraries, no... It would be more comparable to a specific implementation of a dynamic library, which duplicates functionality from lower level APIs. This discussion is a bit similar to the one we (me and you) had with HAL; you think/thought that the idea behind HAL was good but the implementation was less than satisfactory. I think/thought that HAL is/was redundant. From the looks of it, it seems I'm getting what I want from the new Xorg server release (1.8+) where the X server will rely directly on udev (through libudev) for device discovery. Please see my reply (dated 2010-02-13 11:17) to Neils email for more details. Best regards Peter K
