3 ms·

I am curious about this too. On OpenBSD I set export DBUS_SESSION_BUS_ADDRESS="no" to avoid Firefox from starting dbus, which is a Linuxism ported to BSD jus

by jmclnx 5y ago

I am curious about this too. On OpenBSD I set export DBUS_SESSION_BUS_ADDRESS="no" to avoid Firefox from starting dbus, which is a Linuxism ported to BSD just to allow people to execute some applications. That works fine for me. So since this is removed and Firefox is the only app that I use which needs dbus, I wonder if I will be required to use yet another useless (ie: not needed by OpenBSD) process just to use Firefox.

phone8675309 5y ago
It's weird watching the Linux development community go from the position that Windows apps tightly coupling to Windows was bad because it made those programs more of a pain to run under Linux (most of the time requiring Wine) to deciding that sticking with cross-UNIX platforms was just no longer worth their time because Linux "won" the UNIX wars.
- pxc 5y ago
  DBus (the software, rather than the protocol) isn't required on Linux anymore than it is on OpenBSD. It's required by the Plasma and GNOME desktop environments, most KDE and GNOME applications, and any other desktop environments or applications that want to use it. It's also cross-platform, and runs natively on OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD. It does not leverage a compatibility layer, and depending on it is in no way comparable to requiring an emulation layer like WINE.
- TingPing 5y ago
  Don't compare Linux and Windows, thats in bad faith. Developers just want to accomplish the best software they can, its all done in the open, but that doesn't mean they have to design software for other systems with different capabilities.
rjsw 5y ago
I build Firefox without dbus for NetBSD, current version works fine.
md8z 5y ago
I would be really interested to know why people seem to think D-Bus is a "Linuxism". It's a pretty small daemon with an Apache-style license and upstream support for BSD. The only thing I've heard are comments like this where people find that D-Bus is required to run some GTK or Qt application, and those toolkits are viewed as being "Linuxisms", so people put it in that bucket transitively. Is there another reason I missed here?

by jmclnx 5y ago

phone8675309 5y ago

It's weird watching the Linux development community go from the position that Windows apps tightly coupling to Windows was bad because it made those programs more of a pain to run under Linux (most of the time requiring Wine) to deciding that sticking with cross-UNIX platforms was just no longer worth their time because Linux "won" the UNIX wars.

pxc 5y ago
DBus (the software, rather than the protocol) isn't required on Linux anymore than it is on OpenBSD. It's required by the Plasma and GNOME desktop environments, most KDE and GNOME applications, and any other desktop environments or applications that want to use it. It's also cross-platform, and runs natively on OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD. It does not leverage a compatibility layer, and depending on it is in no way comparable to requiring an emulation layer like WINE.
TingPing 5y ago
Don't compare Linux and Windows, thats in bad faith. Developers just want to accomplish the best software they can, its all done in the open, but that doesn't mean they have to design software for other systems with different capabilities.

rjsw 5y ago

I build Firefox without dbus for NetBSD, current version works fine.

md8z 5y ago

I would be really interested to know why people seem to think D-Bus is a "Linuxism". It's a pretty small daemon with an Apache-style license and upstream support for BSD. The only thing I've heard are comments like this where people find that D-Bus is required to run some GTK or Qt application, and those toolkits are viewed as being "Linuxisms", so people put it in that bucket transitively. Is there another reason I missed here?