On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 12:32:53 -1000, Joel wrote in message
<20180616223253.5y7ppwimthm3qidz@sprite>:

> Svante Signell wrote:
> > This is a really good initiative :) Let's get rid of that dbus
> > bloat!
>
> I'm reading a little more about dbus, and find it was
> developed by Havoc Pennington, one of the important kernel
> contributors, IIRC.
>
> I'm not sure *I* need it, but he makes a good case for it
> and explains some apparent oddities here:
>
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8648437

..actually, "Go use 15 year old Linux if you want to replace nostalgic
memories with a good dose of how much it sucked" is the best part of his
advice, it doesn't suck as badly on today's hardware as it did on that
hardware that was brand new 15 years ago, and, we'll benefit from 15
years of dbus, pulseaudio etc experience and can pick and choose the
good stuff and weed out the bad shit when we update to the best of
todays and tomorrows standards.

> in response to this critical article.
>
> http://gentooexperimental.org/~patrick/weblog/archives/2014-11.html
>
> Linus has been critical of the protocol design. At the time
> the kdbus kernel module was proposed, He said that flaws in
> in the protocol are to blame for poor performance rather
> than kernel limitations.
>
> Also, some blame can be laid on the application developers.
> It's one thing to use dbus for automounting an external
> drive, other to use it hundreds or thousands of times per
> second. However from their point of view, convenience
> matters more, and processors are certain to get faster.
>
> Those who care enough about reducing the overhead will avoid
> or limit their use of dbus.

..aye, "why", is by far the important question to get a simple
answer on, rather than that usual avalanche on "how"...

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.