Which desktop do you use Hazel? I'm guessing something like Blackbox or Windowmaker?

Fluxbox.

1 members found this post helpful.

FWIW, we run about 2,000 servers at my work. Systemd is despised by most of our sysadmins and maybe half to a third of our developers.

4 members found this post helpful.

Well, dbus is interesting.

Assuming that you are using a GUI, how do the various components that comprise your GUI find out about things that are happening in your system?

As an example, FVWM (which I used for a looong time) uses inter-process pipes to allow the various modules to broadcast events to each other. But, it used an internal protocol that standard unix tools couldn't process (even if they could listen to said pipes).

dbus is an attempt to do something similar in a non-desktop-specific way.

You may certainly claim that dbus is over-engineered and is similar to using a MOAB to kill a fruit fly.

OTOH, I've been able to use dbus to connect a java process to a bluetooth heart rate monitor so that I could track and graph my heart rate while exercising on something very similar to this. (The link points to the modern version of a Nordic Track skier that I've had since 1989.)

On the gripping hand, you may claim that anything after the word "java" meant that we would be chin deep in the over-engineered world.

DBus uses XML and XML is not very lightweight; most standard unix tools don't handle it very well. That's certainly a reason to dislike it. (No, I'm not joking.) But the idea of having a service that broadcasts interesting events in a way that a given process could subscribe to see only the events it was interested in seeing is not a bad thing. IMO.

1 members found this post helpful.

No dbus on my systems either (except amp, my -current testing system). Applications sometimes complain about the lack, but it hasn't stopped anything from running properly.

The lack of isolation which dbus enabled broke my expectations about the behavior of some applications (mostly firefox-cum-palemoon), so I removed it. Using fvwm for my GUI.

Obviously, a lot of that depends upon your use cases.

I don't view a service that allows software that otherwise is ignorant of the specifics of other software to communicate with that other software as an evil thing.

(That's rather opaque, so it's the difference between "Is bluedevil running" versus "Is something running that can provide bluetooth connectivity". As a software weasel, I'd prefer the latter over the former.)

Oh, certainly, some people find it useful! I do not consider dbus "evil"; it's just not for me. To each their own. You take it, I leave it, and all is well in the world.

That phrase, though -- "to each their own" -- neatly encapsulates part of the problem with systemd. It's not "to each their own" when software dependencies are created to pressure people to adopt it.

Systemd saw limited traction until it subsumed udev, which was how most distros loaded device drivers. An avalanche of adoption followed, which never would have happened otherwise.

The systemd team subsequently tried to introduce interface changes which would have made systemd a necessary dependency for using device drivers, but device driver devs are an unruly crowd. They wouldn't co-operate.

The systemd devs also tried to make systemd a prerequisite for using the linux kernel itself, with kdbus (which required systemd as a bus controller) and then BUS1 (same).

The linux devs rebuffed these attempts to capture the kernel, and that front has seemed quiet for a while. But we know now what the systemd devs would like to accomplish -- make using linux impossible without systemd.

That is the strict oposite of "live and let live", and I will not abide it.

9 members found this post helpful.

If the linux kernel folks defined an interface for a kernel message bus, I'd probably be OK with that. (I do an assload of Java to pay the bills, so when I say "interface", I mean a definition that states the inputs and outputs without a single hint upon the implementation.)

I didn't say dbus was evil, merely that I have no use for it. AFAIR, it was devised to allow desktop applications to talk to each other, which is apparently necessary for drag and drop in desktop environments. I don't use a DE, just a basic window manager.

Using dbus as a general internal message bus is a different matter; it looks like mission creep to me.

1 members found this post helpful.

I learnt a new word today. It made me think of systemd: https://i.imgur.com/oyLVezN_d.jpg

1 members found this post helpful.

The word may be new, but not the thing. Among others, Cristoforo Colombo aka Cristóbal Colón aka Cristóvão de Colombo aka Christophe Colomb did that long ago, even though in his case "purposefully" can be debated.

Since I am learning how systemd mostly targets Enterprise systems I don't thing that word applies. It seems an obvious advantage to me to be able to deploy lots of identical systems quickly and update all of them at the same time in the same way and it seems systemd has some little advantage in that. Furthermore, and let me state that I was very pleased with the many years I used OS/2 so I'm no IBM hater, but IBM was investing millions in Linux, and specifically to RedHat before they bought it out for 34 Billion dollars. I don't have any inside knowledge as to whether they did but if I was on the board of IBM I'd push for certain "amenities" before I'd be interested in buying it for a VERY large sum of money. I do know for a fact that many at IBM are still sore over being hornswoggled by Microsoft not once but twice and would love to shove "that virus" down MS's throat. I also have every reason for confidence that IBM will further develop RedHat into a highly respectable, world class, enterprise opsys. IBM still employs top notch coders and understands their main market very well, despite having no interest in SOHO Desktops and horrid marketing. I predict they will do very well with RedHat and if they didn't hint that something like systemd be developed, they applauded it's development.

Conversely it seems systemd has almost nothing to offer SOHO Desktops but it is fairly innocuous there. I still don't want it on my Main.

Does anyone actually have a need for it? Isn't it just a middle man who does something that can be done elsewhere as well? Perhaps it is a mission creep as you say.

I don't really have much for or against dbus personally. I think it has some good ideas, but I'm not sure the implementation is ideal and I keep receiving annoying dbus messages, so it's clearly far from working perfectly.

I use KDE, but I don't use many services and things that would require dbus, I think only a widget that hotplugs USB devices (well) into the GUI. And I guess the same in dolphin. But I think this could probably also be accomplished without dbus. I think KDE does not give me a choice and make qtdbus a dependency to install KDE. I'm a bit old fashion so I don't use all the bells and whistles of KDE, I just like the customizable window management parts and the clean look. Mostly I only use it as a window manager frankly, and it makes things efficient and me able to do them well. I don't think there is an alternative for me sadly, I think KDE is quite awesome in the way it is organized and adapt to custom preferences. Makes it easy to work with.

Not sure I need dbus for that. Might be a bit overengineered. I hope, hope, when kwin and KDE makes a Wayland based version that they will focus on the right things, those that sets KDE apart, which is excellent windows management, a clean and easy look, tons of personal preferences and ways of doing things and easy to work with. I'm afraid they will rather focus on over-engineering it with functions that alot of people don't need (and not make these modular, but all-inclusive), like ex "organizer", messenger and bluetooth. That's just from the standard interface, then there are all the auto-include programs as well, most of which I never use, and most of which (I guess) use dbus.

I understand KDE wants to be a full desktop, and I support that mission, but I think I'd be very happy if they focus on the core first, and then make the rest optional/modular, including dbus. And option for a lightweight "core" KDE would be completely awesome.

I'll mention a few things while I'm at it actually (edit of post):
- I hate akonadi and always feel a desire to remove it -- dbus heaven, re-engineered, re-implemented.
- All the small programs, sure many are very useful in some cases, but can't I choose those from a category or individually? (screnshot, alarm etc)
- All the large programs, mail, phone etc, why does it belong in "task-kde-minimal"? --- dbus heaven??
- Konsole, ffs thanks KDE, the best terminal emulator available! Awesome!
- PIM etc, what?? Do I need that? At least let me choose. -- dbus stuff?
- Okular, nice, thanks KDE, awesome pdf viewer.

You may find the opinions of a former IBM employee and FreeBSD user to be of interest:

https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/c...-2#post-436148

2 members found this post helpful.

In the UK, we have a political joke: Columbus was the first Labour politician. He set off without knowing where he was going, arrived without knowing where he was, and came back without knowing where he'd been, and he did it all on someone else's money.

6 members found this post helpful.