4 ms·
I'm not against any of these projects in particular (they all solve a specific problem), however as you describe, all the recent infrastructure being pushed on
by tenfingers 12y ago
I'm not against any of these projects in particular (they all solve a specific problem), however as you describe, all the recent infrastructure being pushed on desktop and servers is poorly designed and initially badly implemented. I cannot even blame the distributions, as projects such as DBus/-Kit/etc were initially just part of other, unrelated, projects that got mass adoption.
The implementation got better (actually, systemd partially got rid of many -Kit components which never truly worked, which IMHO, doing us a favor), but the design is still wonky, still poorly documented, very difficult to debug as a result and understand as a whole.
The fact that these tools rely on self-describing protocols with one single implementation without documentation also results in very tight coupling.
It's also shifting the idea of having a cli interface to perform a task to a dbus interface. Often without any documentation of the dbus interface itself to begin with (or with a crappy cli wrapper).
- catern 12y agoHow exactly is a CLI wrapper supposed to work without some kind of IPC? Most components of the system have an associated daemon running and maintaining them. You need some kind of way to communicate to that daemon. DBUS is the most common and easiest way.
- stevejones 12y agoMost components of the system /are/ a daemon. Most of the terrible decisions in Linux infrastructure of the last 10 years have been making daemons where a protocol would would do the job more simply.