[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#645656: network-manager in Gnome

Am Samstag, 5. November 2011, 22:14:15 schrieb Tollef Fog Heen:
> ]] Hendrik Sattler
> | Am Freitag, 4. November 2011, 20:55:24 schrieb Tollef Fog Heen:
> | > So since gnome-shell actually needs gnome-bluetooth, the dependency
> | > should be demoted to a Recommends?
> | 
> | Needs? Why should a desktop _need_ bluetooth?
> Maybe it uses the gnome-bluetooth DBus APIs unconditionally, for
> instance?

Ever considered this to be a bug?

> | It's not even common to have bluetooth hardware.
> Basically all laptops have it, and quite a few desktops does too, so
> I'll disagree with the «not common» bit.

Definitely not "basically", no. Maybe looking beyond your own environment 

In companies, almost _no_ desktop computer has any wireless technology built-
in. May it only be for security reasons (and bluetooth _can_ be a attack 
vector). Laptops in companies often only have WLAN, sometimes not even that. I 
know that at least a leading bluez developer got a laptop from his company 
that has no built-in bluetooth!

Lots of non-technical, private computer users cannot make any sense in having 
bluetooth in their desktop computers as all mobile devices ship with USB 
cables to sync with (or WLAN directly). Until devices actually start to have 
bluetooth 3.0+, this USB connection is also much faster.

On many private computers that have built-in bluetooth, it is _never_ used and 
switched off by default in the BIOS. So bluez also does not see it until 
switched on, something that is never done.

I would even guess that the number of computers that are targetted by Gnome 
and are equipped with switched-on bluetooth hardware is well less below 50% or 
even much less. And that makes a non-optional choice _very_ questionable.

Don't get me wrong: I'm very interested in bluetooth technology, following on 
the bluez mailing list and being upstream openobex developer. But I also know 
that the main usage area is NOT the desktop.


Reply to: