>>> 1. Can't read the damn thing, without the editor.
>>
>> Well, see, the idea is that *you* should never have to look at it. The
>> program in question is supposed to provide a real UI for editing it.
>
> A naive assumption imho.

Well, no, that's the way it's *supposed* to work. The fact that a few 
crappy applications don't do this is beside the point. (That and a few 
low-level OS things that typical users don't need to touch.)

> But, then, Windows is based around, "Sorry, but you can't be trusted to do that."

Well, yes. Just like regular users shouldn't be renaming system DLLs or 
whatever. The *average* user is pretty stupid, after all... (Although I 
admit it would be nice to have a version of Windows designed for 
computer experts!)

> Still, even something like,
> "Export all keys specific to this application.", would have been nice.

What makes you think you can't do that?

>> You realise that the Windows registry has ACLs, right? Exactly like
>> files do? I'm not sure whether Gsettings does this, come to think of
>> it... I suspect not. (After all, Unix doesn't have ACLs for files yet.)
>>
> Meaningless, since, as others have said, it only protect based on user,
> not application.

Well, yeah, if security could be managed per-application, that /would/ 
certainly be superior. But there we are.

Post a reply to this message