[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch
From: |
Dan Muresan |
Subject: |
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch |
Date: |
Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:18:32 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080925) |
> Hence dbus (or any IPC). I'm a little surprised at all the resistance
> to dbus. Here's my pitch again:
It seems that dbus has a polarizing effect on people. This is not the
first time I've seen it. Generally speaking, people who dislike dbus
resonate more to perceived quality / software engineering principles /
"the smell-test", while people who like it tend to focus on the benefits
it brings to the desktop user.
I'm not saying one or the other are right -- but it's hard to persuade
either camp by using the other camp's arguments :)
-- Dan
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Richard Scott, 2008/11/04
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Michael Terry, 2008/11/05
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Richard Scott, 2008/11/06
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch,
Dan Muresan <=
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Richard Scott, 2008/11/06
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, edgar . soldin, 2008/11/06
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Michael Terry, 2008/11/06
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Kenneth Loafman, 2008/11/06
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, edgar . soldin, 2008/11/06
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, Michael Terry, 2008/11/06
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, edgar . soldin, 2008/11/07
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, intrigeri, 2008/11/07
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: dbus patch, edgar . soldin, 2008/11/06