On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 03:43:40PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > So, the entire thing boils down to "I don't like the g-conf storage > format?" (I'm honestly asking here.) It gets some *serious* dings for transparency, yeah -- and lack of transparency is one of the main enemies of the working sysadmin. It's kinda telling that gconf's own /etc/gconf/2/path is just a flat file. :) My initial comment was in response to the statement that the user experience "we" want is to be able to tweak settings in a directory server and have changes propagated out, specifically as opposed to human-editable configuration files in /etc. I don't think that's what we want at all. Ideally, we'd have *both* those things and not have them opposed at all. However, if we can't have both, it'd more useful to a large subset of "we" to have human-editable configuration files in /etc *rather* than the heavy-infrastructure machine-useful-human-difficult solution. Call me as non-visionary as you like, but I've already got a mile-long list of improvements that could be made to the infrastructure here, and I'm sure that's the case at every other large organization as well. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
