Re: Debian, too easy?

[Russell <rjshaw@iprimus.com.au>]

Gregory Seidman wrote:
> 
> Russell sez:
> } Gregory Seidman wrote:
> [...]
> } > A system registry is about having a unified concept of configuration and
> } > preferences. In general, it is a good thing. I look forward to a solid
> } > implementation thereof. I'm betting on Apple doing it first.
> }
> } IMHO, a registry would be ok if it was ascii/human readable,
> 
> An absolute must. MacOS X uses XML for the purpose.
> 
> } you could tell applications to ignore it,
> 
> Um, no. Each user should be able to override any settings, but having
> applications just ignore settings is unworkable.
> 
> } and no applications are forced or required to know about it.
> 
> No! For it to be useful, all applications must use it. That's why there
> needs to be a good implementation; good means that it is so solid and
> convenient that it is harder not to use it than to use it.

Well, i kind of meant that old apps. could still run on the system
in the conventional way, before being adapted for a registry.

> } A set of utilities for examining and manipulating it would be useful
> } too.
> 
> Absolutely. Therein lies the appeal of using XML.

Linux kind of has a scattering of registries already, eg, termcap/terminfo,
xf86config, /etc/X11/app-defaults, /etc/X11/xkb, various other files in /etc...
I'd think a standardized unix registry system would be quite doable. It's just
like the fhs, but for app. settings. However, if the registry is system-wide,
then i guess a root process needs to run it, which means there might be
security problems if users wan't to save personal preferences. Maybe
users should have local copies of registry parts that they need.