Re: (REPOST) user-specific package configuration information
On 4 Jul 2001, sandy pond wrote:
> Date: 4 Jul 2001 00:52:43 -0700
> From: sandy pond <email@example.com>
> To: venom@DarkStar.sns.it
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> Subject: Re: (REPOST) user-specific package configuration information
> Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 09:53:18 +0200
> Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Hi Luigi,
> > >(3) Often, dot files are shared between
> > > multiple packages. Examples include .newsrc, .mime.types, and so on.
> > >
> > mainly the third point is really strong, even more than the second.
> > Modern sysetm will have more and more applications, exspecially isf
> > they are used interactivelly by users, and if every application has
> > to have its own .<config file> inside of the users home, and there is no
> > way to share the most of them, it's going to be
> > very difficoult and disordered situation for sysadmins and users too
> I think your point is well taken. But I also think
> that future integrated programs that need to share
> lots of configuration information will provide
> their own mechanism. The GNOME GConf is
> an example of this movement and also goes to
> highlight the inadequacy of the present scheme.
Anyway, you will EVEN have to deal with traditional Unix Application, and
the tradizional way they do things.
For example, do not pretend emacs to change its $HOME/.emacs, because
it is working this way on EVERY Unix, and there no reason why
it should behave differently with Linux.
But this is not a strong point, since emacs is one application.
Just thonk to all news readers using .newsrc.
Future integrated programs are just a part of the Unix world.
Thanx God unix is unix almost everywhere, and ls is ls since decades.
So I am not thinking new applications are going to replace so
easilly the good working traditional ones.
> However, aside from this, I believe that Ted's 3rd
> point can easily be worked around with several
> possible alternative, provided of course, there is
> adequate interest in curing the present (and still
> growing) mess. For information purposes, my
> home directory currently contains 39 file and
> directory entries for user-specific configuration
> information and is growing daily.
Which kind of alternatives are you thinking to?