[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
- From: Felipe Alfaro Solana <felipe_alfaro linuxmail org>
- To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core <fedora-devel-list redhat com>
- Cc: mattdm mattdm org
- Subject: Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:13:18 +0200
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 17:28 +0100, Jonathan Andrews wrote:
> I have seen variants on the same 200 lines of code for 10 years, even
> windows had an API for ".ini" files from windows 3.11, yet Unix/Linux
> still has no common configuration standard.... Now we have some people
> pushing for XML and other horrors - if the O/S had tackled the problem
> head on then the differences between distributions would be less and the
> portability of configuration would be greater. Unix people seem to agree
> small files, plain text - yet they have no common API ?? Doesn't this
> just contribute to the mess !
No, as what could seem best suited for one couldn't be flexible/scalable
for another. I think that trying to find a single configuration scheme
(one-size-fits-all) is a bad idea. Just imagine storing thousands Snort
rules on a Windows-like registry.
The KEY=value methapor is not well suited for every kind of application.
- References:
- Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
- Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
- Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
- Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
- From: Felipe Alfaro Solana
- Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
- Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
- Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
- From: Felipe Alfaro Solana
- Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
- Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
- Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
- Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
- Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]