4 ms·
> D-bus is fantastic in its own right and good at abstracting functionalities. This feeling about D-bus is, I feel, not universally experienced.
by jclulow 6y ago
> D-bus is fantastic in its own right and good at abstracting functionalities.
This feeling about D-bus is, I feel, not universally experienced.
- venamresm__ 6y agoI'm aware, it's a half-ironic quote. Take a look a this article: https://venam.nixers.net/blog/unix/2020/07/06/dbus-polkit.html https://venam.nixers.net/blog/unix/2020/07/06/dbus-polkit.ht...
- esarbe 6y agoLet me quote: > D-Bus has also been criticized as being bloated and over-engineered, though those claims are often unsubstantiated and only come from online rants. It remains that D-Bus is still heavily popular and that there’s no replacement that is a real contender.
- viraptor 6y agoThere's some work happening on https://bus1.org/ https://bus1.org/ However yes, dbus exists. It could be improved a lot but it does its job. There are some valid issues, but I also get the impression that a large number of people criticising it never actually tried to use it or understand what it does.
- enriquto 6y agoI regularly kill all daemons in my computer whose name contains the substring "dbus". Never noticed any problem with that, and everything works OK. I don't hate dbus, but I never understood what purpose does it serve, and it just annoys me to see it around.
- deaddodo 6y agoD-bus is a process discovery and communication protocol. It allows processes to universally interact with each other in a high-level manner versus requiring bespoke IPC mechanisms (low-level sockets, signals, shm, etc).
- viraptor 6y agoIf you just kill it without disabling the service it may be restarted both as a dependency when it's needed or immediately after killing. Things like network service discovery, possibly network configuration, screenshots, Bluetooth, IME, and many others use dbus these days.