On Tuesday 19 May 2009 15:03:28 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 02:06:05PM -0400, drew Roberts
wrote:
I think what he was saying was that jackdbus
would check for jackd in
$PATH and complain bitterly / refuse to sintall / whatever. Not that it
would try and control what $PATH was set to.
Indirectly that amounts to limiting my choice for
setting $PATH.
I am not so sure. (But I am open to being convinced.)
If I write two programs which I know cannot coexist and I set it so that the
newer one checks for the existence of the older one and pitches a hissy fit
if a person tries to install both, is it really a problem. (I am not saying
that I think this would be the ideal solution by the way.)
The idea that a single app should have any impact
on such things is IMHO near to unthinkable.
More generally, this sort of thing is pure Big
Brother, and I don't need one, no matter how good
his intentions may be.
The two other examples I mentioned were not chosen
randomly. We now have file systems that are not
in /etc/fstab being mounted from X init scripts,
doesn't matter if you want them or not and even
root can't remove them, and device permissions set
by display managers.
Both are examples of braindead ways to do things,
both originate from the same source. Dbus ties
jackd to the desktop and is just one more example
of the same insane evolution.
I think I saw someone say that the dbus jack could be used without a desktop.
(Is that the case? Anyone?) If so and it is indeed now tied in for your setup
where it doesn't need to be, should we try and run down who is responsible
for the tie in?
In general though, I agree with you. I don't like people needlessly deciding
one what people will and will not want to do and then needlessly deciding
that they will prevent them from doing what they don't need to do.
I have done some pretty odd things in my time for my own reasons and have been
quite happy with the results, all things considered.
Ciao,
all the best,
drew