 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The Windows registry. Apparently a lot of people hate it. Tom Kyte
refers to it as "the Microsoft copy-protection system" (which is odd,
considering it has absolutely nothing to do with copy-protection...)
Apparently it's a *really* unpopular system.
The Unix way has always been for programs to populate your home
directory with thousands of .rc files, each and every one of them in a
different randomly-designed file format.
But now, there is a new hope for a unified configuration system. They
call it "Gsettings". And the hilarious thing is that it is COMPLETELY
ISOMORPHIC TO... the Windows registry.
It consists of a binary file containing a hierarchical tree of named
folders, containing named keys, which easy have a value of a certain
well-defined type. (Usually "integer" or "string".) Changing one of
these settings has immediate effect on the owning application. And, for
the most part, different application's keys are jumbled up in a random,
haphazard manner.
...EXACTLY like the Windows registry.
Yes, it seems the GNU folks hate the Windows registry SO MUCH that they
went out and added an exact reimplementation of it to their own
software. :-P So much irony!
In fairness, it's not /completely/ identical. The folders are called
"keys" under Windows, whereas Gsettings calls them "schemas". Both
systems store this stuff in a binary file, but Gsettings loads the key
definitions from XML files and "compiles" them into binary. Unlike the
Windows registry, each key has a textual description (which is
frequently very unhelpful), and a default value to which you can reset
the key. Oh, and most keys for selecting options use text strings rather
than weird code numbers. Also, the Windows registry supports storing
stuff in multiple different "hives", whereas Gsettings apparently does not.
But apart from all this... totally identical. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/28/2012 2:28 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> The Windows registry. Apparently a lot of people hate it. Tom Kyte
> refers to it as "the Microsoft copy-protection system" (which is odd,
> considering it has absolutely nothing to do with copy-protection...)
> Apparently it's a *really* unpopular system.
>
> The Unix way has always been for programs to populate your home
> directory with thousands of .rc files, each and every one of them in a
> different randomly-designed file format.
>
> But now, there is a new hope for a unified configuration system. They
> call it "Gsettings". And the hilarious thing is that it is COMPLETELY
> ISOMORPHIC TO... the Windows registry.
>
> It consists of a binary file containing a hierarchical tree of named
> folders, containing named keys, which easy have a value of a certain
> well-defined type. (Usually "integer" or "string".) Changing one of
> these settings has immediate effect on the owning application. And, for
> the most part, different application's keys are jumbled up in a random,
> haphazard manner.
>
> ...EXACTLY like the Windows registry.
>
> Yes, it seems the GNU folks hate the Windows registry SO MUCH that they
> went out and added an exact reimplementation of it to their own
> software. :-P So much irony!
>
>
>
> In fairness, it's not /completely/ identical. The folders are called
> "keys" under Windows, whereas Gsettings calls them "schemas". Both
> systems store this stuff in a binary file, but Gsettings loads the key
> definitions from XML files and "compiles" them into binary. Unlike the
> Windows registry, each key has a textual description (which is
> frequently very unhelpful), and a default value to which you can reset
> the key. Oh, and most keys for selecting options use text strings rather
> than weird code numbers. Also, the Windows registry supports storing
> stuff in multiple different "hives", whereas Gsettings apparently does not.
>
> But apart from all this... totally identical. :-P
Snort.. Actually, the problem with the windows registry are:
1. Can't read the damn thing, without the editor.
2. Things don't always uninstall cleanly.
3. There are no safeguards to stop program X from screwing with a key
for program Y.
This might require some sort of, "mark this key as editable", or
something, since there may be a few cases where you do want to allow
this, for specific things.
4. It doesn't clean itself up.
Which is to say, some things you might want to keep, like program
information for a DVD, or other removable media, but why load in keys,
and settings, for permanently installed applications, which are no
longer on the system, let alone keep the data on them, unless its, say,
just pointers to data, or something that another program, again, maybe
could need/be given access too?
All of these things make it a pain in the ass. Well, that, and the fact
that, due to how some of the stuff like linked together in it, its hard,
and there are no tools for, tracing how all the parts connect, so you
can either kill all related keys, or figure out which one might have
broken, like a file open function, pointing at a loader, which points to
its application, where any one in the chain could be screwed, by they
are all tied together using long chains of hexadecimal IDs. And, that is
one of the simple cases...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/10/2012 09:41 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Snort.. Actually, the problem with the windows registry are:
>
> 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.
Much like you should never have to look at a JPEG file in a hex editor;
you should use a real image viewer / editor.
> 2. Things don't always uninstall cleanly.
Gsettings might plausibly do this better. It looks like you just delete
that program's XML file and then recompile the schemas... but I haven't
tested this.
Under Windows, any program can just add or delete arbitrary keys.
> 3. There are no safeguards to stop program X from screwing with a key
> for program Y.
>
> This might require some sort of, "mark this key as editable", or
> something, since there may be a few cases where you do want to allow
> this, for specific things.
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.)
> 4. It doesn't clean itself up.
That's really more a problem with crappy software than with the registry
itself. It's like, very commonly you uninstall some program, and then
months later realise that some of its files are still sitting on your
harddrive. Is that a problem with filesystems? No, not really; it's a
problem with badly written installers and uninstallers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/10/2012 9:41 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> Snort.. Actually, the problem with the windows registry are:
>
> 1. Can't read the damn thing, without the editor.
Why is that a problem? You always need some sort of software to read a
computer file and regedit comes with Windows.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
didn't you know that bastard Miguel de Icaza has long been copying and pasting
Microsoft tech into Linux so they can get royalties?
he first developed Gnome and all Grelated stuff and damned mono
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 10/28/2012 2:28 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> The Windows registry. Apparently a lot of people hate it. Tom Kyte
>> refers to it as "the Microsoft copy-protection system" (which is odd,
>> considering it has absolutely nothing to do with copy-protection...)
>> Apparently it's a *really* unpopular system.
>>
>> The Unix way has always been for programs to populate your home
>> directory with thousands of .rc files, each and every one of them in a
>> different randomly-designed file format.
AIX has had a binary configuration system for eons.
>>
>> But now, there is a new hope for a unified configuration system. They
>> call it "Gsettings". And the hilarious thing is that it is COMPLETELY
>> ISOMORPHIC TO... the Windows registry.
"Unified" for anyone who decides to use it. It will probably become as
popular as CDE.
>
> Snort.. Actually, the problem with the windows registry are:
>
> 1. Can't read the damn thing, without the editor.
>
> 2. Things don't always uninstall cleanly.
Even though it's mostly due to lazy uninstallers, that can be done on
purpose. For example, trial versions leave install info beihnd on
purpose so that you can't simply reinstall your demo version when the 30
days have expired. Another reason might be shared keys between multiple
applications of the same family. If you uninstall app A from vendor X
and it zaps the whole X branch of the registry, then app B from the same
vendor will no longer function properly. The real problem is that the
Windows registry does not keep track of which applications need which
key, so the uninstaller (or a defrag utility) can't really know which
keys are still valid.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 28/10/2012 09:41 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Snort.. Actually, the problem with the windows registry are:
>>
>> 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.
> Much like you should never have to look at a JPEG file in a hex editor;
> you should use a real image viewer / editor.
>
>> 2. Things don't always uninstall cleanly.
>
> Gsettings might plausibly do this better. It looks like you just delete
> that program's XML file and then recompile the schemas... but I haven't
> tested this.
>
> Under Windows, any program can just add or delete arbitrary keys.
>
>> 3. There are no safeguards to stop program X from screwing with a key
>> for program Y.
>>
>> This might require some sort of, "mark this key as editable", or
>> something, since there may be a few cases where you do want to allow
>> this, for specific things.
>
> 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.
>
These ACLs are based on userID, not app. So if I run an anti-virus
installer as "Francois", and then click on a bad link, there's nothing
that will prevent BadVirus.exe from messing with the anti-virus
autostart keys with the same user ID.
> (After all, Unix doesn't have ACLs for files yet.)
WAT?
Have you ever typed "ls -l" ? Do you know what the "rwxr-x---" mean on
the left hand side.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotron ca> wrote:
> > (After all, Unix doesn't have ACLs for files yet.)
>
> WAT?
>
> Have you ever typed "ls -l" ? Do you know what the "rwxr-x---" mean on
> the left hand side.
good thing he was hired to work on *nix things ^_^
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/10/2012 01:33 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> (After all, Unix doesn't have ACLs for files yet.)
>
> WAT?
>
> Have you ever typed "ls -l" ? Do you know what the "rwxr-x---" mean on
> the left hand side.
No deary. I mean being able to set an *arbitrary* combination of
permissions.
If you have a folder and you want all the people in QA to have read-only
access, the people in Helpdesk to be able to create new files but not
modify existing ones, and the guys in Development to have full
read/write access, you can actually do exactly that with NTFS file
permissions. Good luck trying to do it with umask...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 29.10.2012 14:33, schrieb Francois Labreque:
> > (After all, Unix doesn't have ACLs for files yet.)
>
> WAT?
>
> Have you ever typed "ls -l" ? Do you know what the "rwxr-x---" mean on
> the left hand side.
And you know that ACL is an acronym for "Access Control LISTS", right?
Full-fledged ACLs do allow you to specify individual access rights for
an arbitrary number of users and/or user groups, not just for the owner,
one user group and the rest of the world.
BTW, some commercial Unixes like HP-UX do provide proper ACLs (they even
use that very term for the feature).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
