On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 9:19 AM, pk <pete...@coolmail.se> wrote:
> On 2011-09-18 14:32, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
>> So you are going from a single bug to 'it must be evil'. If you do that all
>> the time there isn't much software left.
>
> You said: "I bet you can't even measure a
> difference between dbus running and dbus not running in speed or
> responsiveness of your gui."
>
> I only pointed out that that was not always correct (I don't run
> Ubuntu). And I have had a _lot_ of problems with dbus (again, this was
> years ago, running binary distros - it's only recently that I had dbus
> installed again due to Xfce4 requiring it); if I get burnt by some piece
> of software (usually it's gnome/freedesktop related - seems a lot of bad
> ideas/implementations come from that "place") I try to go "elsewhere".
> So if your experience with dbus is different, then fine, by all means
> use it; it is your choice. But I choose to avoid it, if possible.
>
> And yes, it seems no matter how hard I try the "gnome" paradigm ('evil'
> software) seems to be inching ever closer... I think developers, in
> general, should take some hints from this guy:
> http://www.sics.se/~adam/
> ... he created this:
> http://www.contiki-os.org/p/about-contiki.html
> ... running this:
> http://www.c64web.com/Hey, that's really cool. Just don't expect everybody to run our systems without the modern parts of the stack just because a Commodore 64 cannot run it. Many of us actually like the modern features of the kernel, glibc, udev, dbus, systemd, pulseaudio, glib, X.org, GStreamer, Gtk+ and GNOME (or Qt and KDE). In my case (and I have used Linux for a long time), the whole stack looks full of awsomeness, and stuff just works most of the time. So yeah, we use more CPU cycles, more memory and more hard drive. From my POV, we get more than that in new and improved functionality. > Best regards Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
