On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 08:27, Dan Williams wrote: > On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 11:15 -0400, Stan Bubrouski wrote: > > > > 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. > > 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. Well, the typical Linux groupie has a pretty fixed and simple schema to evaluate everything: - Looks Like Linux = Good (TM) - Looks Like Windows = Bad (TM) The Windows registry has some shortcomings, indeed, but all of them are stemming from the fact that the WinReg's storage backend is a SPoF (single point of failure). The abstract idea of a unified config mechanism is good, and you pretty much exhausted the arguments for that, it's just that the concrete implementation of it has to be designed in such a way as to minimize (if not snuff out altogether) the SPoF. For as long as i've been playing with Linux i've been dreaming of a way to get out of the "Every App Has It's Own Fancy Schmancy Incompatible Config File Format" hell. I envied Windows for its registry while at the same time being aware of the problems of a registry implemented badly. And it looks like the Linux Registry goes a bit even further than WinReg, if i understand it correctly. -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/
