Hi,
I was actually defending the project :) I _do_ personally think that
Linux needs some more consistent configuration. It may be that each
program gets its own flat text file in a specific location (most likely
under /etc) but uses a library with a consistent API to write to that
file. Therefore, an administrator would be able to change the file just
fine, but normal *nix permissions would still apply and nobody would be
able to "walk all over everybody's keys".
At least most config files are now under /etc on Linux, but each file
having a completely different format is somewhat off.
Dan
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Remco Treffkorn wrote:
Dan, I wish more people would take the time to read the material before
blasting it based on assumptions. OTOH, it might be a fatal mistake to have
the project called 'Linux Registry'.
I was sceptical when I started reading, but got converted. I actually like the
idea.
On Tuesday 27 July 2004 12:18, Dan Williams wrote:
> Not that I'm advocating it (I'm don't care one way or the other), but
> most Linux people dislike the windows registry for reasons this project
> would fix:
>
> - All key-value pairs are stored in clear-text files. (Windows uses
> binary files(?)) (Next question, how about nested values...
>
> - It is designed to be easy to administrate with regular command line
> tools like cat, vi, cp, ls, ln. Its storage is 100% open. (this is also
> a common argument against Windows Registry by anti-registry folk)
>
> Anybody can abuse a flat text file config system too, just as much as
> the Windows Registry becomes a horrible mess.
>
--
Remco Treffkorn (RT445)
HAM DC2XT
remco(a)rvt.com (831) 685-1201
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list