The Strengths and Weakness of Fedora/RHEL OS management

[Avi Alkalay]

On 3/28/06, Toshio Kuratomi <toshio at tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
>
> If you look through the following, monster thread you'll find that
> elektra is a bad choice for the desktop configuration api.  System and
> desktop configuration requirements are different.  Also, the author of
> that GConf comparison doesn't seem to understand the problems GConf is
> attempting to solve which doesn't bode well for it ever displacing
> GConf.
>
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-July/msg01392.html
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-August/msg00024.html
>
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-November/msg00039.html


Makes me laugh because I discussed in all those threads :-)

Elektra doesn't want to displace GConf. It actualy can't.
GConf provides way more benefits for desktop applications. But.... KDE
programs can't access Gnome properties and vice-versa. So here comes
Elektra.

Being smaller, simpler, more generic, it fits perfectly as a backend for
GConf and a backend for KConfig (KDE's configuration API) at the same time.
This way each framework will keep on using its own API and naming
conventions, but Gnome apps will be able to access KDE's configuration
atoms, and vice-versa. So we can have only one place to store global desktop
things like proxy, background, default font, etc. More than that: KDE and
Gnome will be able to use their own APIs to access Samba's, X.org's, DHCP,
Apache, etc configurations as those softwares were plain KDE or Gnome apps
:-)


Avi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20060330/511da42c/attachment.htm>