[arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?

[Arvid Picciani]

Aaron Griffin wrote:

> Mechanisms have existed for like 20 years before dbus to communicate
> with other programs.

and those don't require a user space daemon.

> 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".


"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." 
– Henry Spencer

> That's why I dislike it.

+1

I'll add some additional points:
- it's implementation is large broken.
- most software depending on it, will crash when dbus
   crashes, or fail to start uncracefully, or behave unexpected.
- some systems are actually not supported by hal while
   they are by udev and have system-v IPCs.
- reinventing the wheel and calling it super-boat-2000
   isn't going to help anyone. Instead of fixing problems,
   people constantly create new ones.
- FDO is hierarchic and polical level.
   Dbus is hierarchic on technical level.
   FDO wishes to provide a better experience to users by
   integrating all software nicely into one global truth.
   The Foss ecosystem is not hierarchic.
   The Foss ecosystem does not require a single truth
   to rule them all.
   The Foss ecosystem does not require to be competitive
   with OtherOs.

--

Arvid
Asgaard Technologies