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

[fons at kokkinizita.net]

On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 11:29:51AM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:

> Mechanisms have existed for like 20 years before dbus to communicate
> with other programs. 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".
> 
> That's why I dislike it.

I agree, and there is more.

- 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 ?
- 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.
- 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.

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.

Ciao,

-- 
FA