
Avoid D-Bus bus activation - vezzy-fnord
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/Softwares/nosh/avoid-dbus-bus-activation.html
======
boxfire
Having dæmon instead of daemon in the article makes my blood boil a little,
but I managed to push through. The ligature has no place in writing about
computer daemons. It might apply if we were having a talk about medieval
literature regarding demons.

~~~
jfb
It's like "virii" or "octopi" or other hypercorrect mistakes.

EDIT: "viruses" and "octopuses", please. Maybe possibly potentially
"octopodes."

~~~
Dylan16807
It's a historical spelling, not misapplying a grammatical rule outside of its
scope. I don't see the resemblance.

~~~
jfb
It's a mistake from hypercorrection. It's not a historical spelling, it's a
misspelling.

~~~
Dylan16807
>It's not a historical spelling

If you don't accept online evidence, will you accept a picture of a dictionary
from 1933 listing it as a valid spelling?

~~~
jfb
It's a new coinage, after the ae ligature had fallen into disuse. Would you
expect that "browser" should be spelled "browƒer"?

~~~
Dylan16807
Uh, that's a font choice, so yes you can do that.

~~~
anyfoo
It is not just a font choice, it is a different set of characters that share
some connection.

The same way as you can't just spell any german word that contains digraphs
for Umlauts with the actual Umlauts. I made the "Oehler"/"Öhler" example
above. People who are named Oehler would probably be pretty annoyed at your
insistence to spell their name wrong, just like people here are annoyed at
your spelling of daemon.

I assume you do not come from a country which has an extended latin alphabet?
In Germany for example, it is pretty common to clarify how to spell such names
on the phone, like saying "Mueller with U-E". If that would be a font choice,
this would not be an issue.

~~~
Dylan16807
Long s is the same character as short s. OE and Ö are not the same character.

æ is a ligature in some contexts, and its own letter in others.

None of which matters to the original question.

~~~
kuschku
ſ and s is not the same character – in some languages at some times, it was
used to mark a sharper s.

Combined with the z, from ſz came ß later.

------
digi_owl
Dbus, a Freedesktop project, being insular with Systemd? Perish the though...

At this point in time the sane thing to do would be to stay away from anything
Freedesktop, Gnome, or Systemd. Otherwise you will find your future dictated
by RH/Fedora whims.

------
jjoonathan
> The obvious thing to do is for the bus controller dæmon to hand off the task
> of starting and managing these dæmons to a dæmon management subsystem.
> Unfortunately, ... the writers of D-Bus didn't make it capable of talking to
> any of them.

but, not two sentences later,

> the bus controller dæmon talks ... to systemd and tells it to start the
> relevant dæmon(s)

Did I miss something? Or is this just exaggerated systemd butthurt?

~~~
vezzy-fnord
It quite clearly says that there's only two modes of operation: the incorrect
D-Bus activator, and the communication with systemd's internal D-Bus protocol.
Nothing else.

That's not "exaggerated systemd butthurt", it's your deliberately obtuse
misreading.

~~~
tdicola
Isn't systemd a daemon manager that solves all the pain of managing daemons
though? If you want D-Bus activation and good daemon control then just use
systemd as it was designed.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
You don't realize the problem with an essential component like D-Bus properly
integrating only one service manager out of dozens instead of being generic,
or even better - not having explicitly broken functionality to begin with?

(And no, systemd does not solve all the pain. Having to debug dependency
loops, stuck job states, journal fragmentation, intertwining of system and
service states, etc. isn't much fun for the benefits that I can just as easily
get from something intensely more modular and sanely architected like nosh or
s6.)

