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@xxxxxxx (831) 685-1201 > > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list >
