On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 08:27, Dan Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 11:15 -0400, Stan Bubrouski wrote:
>
> Yeah why do people want to move to a single config database anyways? So
> you can have a single point of failure for an entire server and all
> services? Or so one poorly written app can corrupt it all? Ya know I
> agree with you guys here.
The point of a good converged config project (IMHO) would be a
_consistent_ _file_ _format_ in plain-text files, NOT a binary-only
single-file registry. People simply don't seem to understand that.
Well, the typical Linux groupie has a pretty fixed and simple schema to
evaluate everything:
- Looks Like Linux = Good (TM)
- Looks Like Windows = Bad (TM)
The Windows registry has some shortcomings, indeed, but all of them are
stemming from the fact that the WinReg's storage backend is a SPoF
(single point of failure).
The abstract idea of a unified config mechanism is good, and you pretty
much exhausted the arguments for that, it's just that the concrete
implementation of it has to be designed in such a way as to minimize (if
not snuff out altogether) the SPoF.
For as long as i've been playing with Linux i've been dreaming of a way
to get out of the "Every App Has It's Own Fancy Schmancy Incompatible
Config File Format" hell. I envied Windows for its registry while at the
same time being aware of the problems of a registry implemented badly.
And it looks like the Linux Registry goes a bit even further than
WinReg, if i understand it correctly.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/