NetworkManager and ConnMan (Dan Williams' Blog)

1. Well know name holding by a user application on SYSTEM bus is _fundamentally_ ..., well I will not going to lose my time time here you can check connman code and you will find it doesn't require such thing.

"There is no reason to run multiple user settings services on the bus." Then why do you need user setting in the first?

2. For gnome applet perhaps, but I see it from another perspective: you got libnm-glib because dbus-glib is not a good binding and also because it seems you didn't spend a lot of time making the spec in shape. The spec uses very complex signatures and enums (have you learn this from telepathy?).

3, 4 and 5. All this arguments you posted may be valid for gnome desktop, for the rest, not even close. If you don't get it, then I can't help you, but I guess people are starting to figure out this is not a good idea (pushing gnome/gobject software to the daemon realm), devicekit was a gnome thing and Im glad its being dropped in favor of direct udev (gudev).

People that do care about _LINUX_ desktop (like enlightenment) will probably use connman from now on and I hope KDE will follow.

I don't want to ever see this gobject messages on my syslog again.