On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 11:15 -0400, Stan Bubrouski wrote: > On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 15:15 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > Harry Hoffman wrote: > > > > > This is truly a horrible idea!!! Think about "how well" it works in > > > windows. Or think AIX. > > > > I absolutely agree! Having anything like the Windows Registry for Linux > > is a wretched, wretched idea... > > > > Yeah why do people want to move to a single config database anyways? So > you can have a single point of failure for an entire server and all > services? Or so one poorly written app can corrupt it all? Ya know I > agree with you guys here. It does NOT have to be one file. A libconfig (or something) that exports a standard API that programs use to look up configuration values. It writes PLAIN TEXT configuration files to somewhere in /etc in a consistent format across all applications that use it. Most things store config files in /etc right now, so in the _current_ situation, if your /etc/ takes a dive, you're hosed. I fail to see how a config situation as described in the above paragraph would be _worse_ than what exists now. The point of a good converged config project (IMHO) would be a _consistent_ _file_ _format_ in plain-text files, NOT a binary-only single-file registry. People simply don't seem to understand that. Dan
