LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-25-2008, 02:13 PM   #31
i92guboj
Gentoo support team
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: Lucena, Córdoba (Spain)
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 4,069

Rep: Reputation: 383Reputation: 383Reputation: 383Reputation: 383

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikejam View Post
To be fair to MS, the registry sounds like quite a good idea on paper.
A single system-wide repository of config data, with the ability to merge configuration sets without major (sed/grep/awk)-foo and a consistent API sounds pretty convincing.

I'll be sticking with flat text files myself, though. gconf, registry et al might be nice for developers, but they're a royal pain in the ass for users and admins on a day to day basis.

Dave
A centralized thing might sound like a good thing, on papers, as you say. But there's a lot of factors that would make this insanely complicated in linux

First, you would need an universal language. I've seen lots of threads talking about this in many forums. Some preople propose a standard based on xml tags, others like tabular text files. The plain truth is that each program has it's propers config format, and for a good reason.

Some config files are intended to be sourced on a shell at some point, so, using any other formated kind of file wouldn't work, since here you need shell syntax, and adding another layer would just overcomplicate the things

This same syntax is not suitable for some other things. And here the discussion could continue for years without the people agreeing. Definitely, I don't want my configs on binary files. If we had a registry alike, I'd vote for a plain text format, like xml. But if nothing is moving in that direction, it's maybe because no one has found a solution that is practical on the real world, and not just on papers.

Whatever it is, I'd prefer this hypothetical new solution to be file system based. If anything, I'd like a standard config file format, but a separate file (and dirs) for everything. I don't want a massive registry file. I never liked that idea.

Lost of efforts are dedicated to standarize some desktop related things, but none is interested in standarizing config files, because:

1.- they are most times trivial to use and understand
2.- they are accessible, even on minimal environments when everything is broken
3.- people is just used to them

Last edited by i92guboj; 09-25-2008 at 02:15 PM.
 
Old 09-25-2008, 02:16 PM   #32
ilikejam
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Glasgow
Distribution: Fedora / Solaris
Posts: 3,109

Rep: Reputation: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by i92guboj View Post
1.- they are most times trivial to use and understand
2.- they are accessible, even on minimal environments when everything is broken
3.- people is just used to them
The very nature of Unix, methinks...
 
Old 09-25-2008, 02:25 PM   #33
Quads
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2008
Location: Indiana
Distribution: Fedora, Ubuntu, Slackware
Posts: 203

Rep: Reputation: 34
And in all honesty, in Windoze I think the regristry just kind of took on a life of its own and outgrew what it was meant to do. Like when you see a cluttered office and the person says don't touch anything I know where everything is, even though its a huge mess. I think the users just adapted to the centralized system because they didn't have a choice. I think that system would work better if it could work without the user having to go in and change anything, because it becomes very confusing very quickly. And god forbid you forget to back up the registry first.
 
Old 09-25-2008, 02:28 PM   #34
irishbitte
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2007
Location: Brighton, UK
Distribution: Ubuntu Hardy, Ubuntu Jaunty, Eeebuntu, Debian, SME-Server
Posts: 1,213
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 83
Hi there, I think you are getting confused about the link in here, this guy was editing his Windows registry, using Linux, on a dual boot machine. He was not editing a Linux registry, since such a thing does not exist.

Hope that helps you understand...
 
Old 09-25-2008, 03:16 PM   #35
ceantuco
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: New Jersey
Distribution: CentOS, Debian, Kali, Ubuntu, OpenSuse
Posts: 605

Rep: Reputation: 40
thanks for the wine clarification! I knew wine was like an emulator that lets me run some win apps however I didn't know it came bundled with a ver of the registry (i just noticed it has a lot less values than a regular win system)
Thanks again!
btw the REGISTRY IS A NIGHTMARE!!!!
 
Old 09-25-2008, 03:26 PM   #36
salasi
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Location: Directly above centre of the earth, UK
Distribution: SuSE, plus some hopping
Posts: 4,061

Rep: Reputation: 893Reputation: 893Reputation: 893Reputation: 893Reputation: 893Reputation: 893Reputation: 893
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinniped View Post
Why waste time with the horrible WinDuhs registry? The old UNIX text configuration files are much easier to understand, are easily annotated, and you don't have to reinstall all your software if you accidentally screw up one configuration file.
...agreed 100%...get used to this system an you'll wonder why on earth anyone would invent the Windows registry
Quote:
I think MS invented the registry to obscure operations from the users.
...although I disagree with that, slightly. I think it was part of an M$ campaign (around NT 4, if I remember correctly) to obfuscate the system as far as software suppliers were concerned. At that point, if you remember, it wasn't necessarily a done deal that M$ Office would win out over, for example, WordPerfect, and it was necessary for M$ to give its in-house program whatever edge they could over other software suppliers, so that they could cash in off both the Office package and the OS. (It was particularly not a done deal in the sense that early versions of both M$ Office and competing programs were crap, and the right solution wasn't yet apparent.)

The other part of that was making the OS as difficult to write good software for as possible (including hiding system calls, poor documentation of the registry, etc.). Of course this also gave rise to a situation which the reputation of windows was worsened (you may not believe this is possible...) by badly written apps, but, if you are M$, you probably think that job of selling Office against WordPathetic is now done and they don't have to be so 'hard line' any more, but, for a while, it was a tricky line to walk.

Part was also convincing independant software suppiers that OS2 was the future, and having sold them the dummy, and wrong footed them, it left the field clear for M$ for a time and a time was all M$ needed.
 
Old 09-25-2008, 03:55 PM   #37
dasy2k1
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: 127.0.0.1
Distribution: Ubuntu 12.04 X86_64
Posts: 958

Rep: Reputation: 35
now its the hard line of getting users to use ie7 rather than firefox,
thats why if you try to install firefox in windows it says it is malicious software
 
Old 09-25-2008, 06:55 PM   #38
pinniped
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: planet earth
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 1,732

Rep: Reputation: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceantuco View Post
hi guys,

I typed regedit and this came up:

cesar@work:~> regedit
wine: created the configuration directory '/home/cesar/.wine'
Could not load Mozilla. HTML rendering will be disabled.
wine: configuration in '/home/cesar/.wine' has been updated.

and the Windows registry opened!!! is it because I have a dual boot system so linux opens the windows registry?

WEIRD!!!
The WINE registry is nothing like the WinDuhs registry - information is stored in multiple files (you might compare that with a Microsoft 'hive') but it is all in text and not in binary. Have a look at the files with the settings for your favorite WinDuhs app.
 
Old 09-25-2008, 09:17 PM   #39
rob.rice
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Distribution: slack what ever
Posts: 998

Rep: Reputation: 159Reputation: 159
Unix has been evolving since 1971
Linux was based on Unix it has all that evolution in it
the best way to handle the complexities evolved in a multi user multi tasking O/S
is modulation break the system up in to smaller parts
partly because not all systems will need all parts that could be added
( for example most file servers don't have a gui )
mostly because a problem in one part should never ever never cause a problem in another part
so the configuration files are broken up this configuration file for this part another for that part
why use plain text because humans can read plain text ( plain and simple )
 
Old 09-26-2008, 11:02 AM   #40
trickykid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2001
Posts: 24,149

Rep: Reputation: 234Reputation: 234Reputation: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quads View Post
Well they've made how many billions of $, maybe they know better than we do
Actually they make more money outside of their OS last time I heard, could be wrong, but they provide more than a crappy OS.. they've got other crap they sell as well...
 
Old 09-26-2008, 03:45 PM   #41
PMorph
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 213

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikejam View Post
A single system-wide repository of config data, with the ability to merge configuration sets without major (sed/grep/awk)-foo and a consistent API sounds pretty convincing.
Never tried to use stuff from an existing registry to configure a fresh win install (doing that with .*rc files all the time). The mere thought of such task is damn frightening

Besides, binary config files are teh EVIL!
 
Old 09-26-2008, 04:15 PM   #42
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: Slackware®
Posts: 12,645
Blog Entries: 27

Rep: Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012
Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by trickykid View Post
Actually they make more money outside of their OS last time I heard, could be wrong, but they provide more than a crappy OS.. they've got other crap they sell as well...
Microsoft still has over 90% (overall) of the market share for their OS back in 2004 it was 97%. You could google for the applications but I don't use them that much. So why waste time.
 
Old 09-26-2008, 04:38 PM   #43
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quads View Post
Well they've made how many billions of $, maybe they know better than we do
They did not make all that money developing basic technology or the best SW designs. MS is basically a marketing company.
 
Old 09-27-2008, 07:30 AM   #44
catweasel28
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Distribution: Mint, OpenSUSE,Dream
Posts: 68

Rep: Reputation: 17
etc stands for 'editable text configuration', which pretty much sums the files in this directory, despite a few exceptions such as 'shadow' and 'sudoers'. This directory was part of Kenneth Thompson's original Unix and has remained in all 'nixes ever since. So it must be doing something right!.
 
Old 10-02-2008, 04:59 PM   #45
Quads
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2008
Location: Indiana
Distribution: Fedora, Ubuntu, Slackware
Posts: 203

Rep: Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixellany View Post
They did not make all that money developing basic technology or the best SW designs. MS is basically a marketing company.

I agree with you about that. But as much as we can debate it, you can't change the fact that they developed a stranglehold on the market, and in America it doesn't matter what kind of junk you put out as long as you can sell it. And lets be honest, mixed in with the garbage they've put out, there has been some good software and some really good ideas.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
windows registry editor for ubuntu. caa1980 Ubuntu 4 04-26-2008 10:18 AM
chntpw registry editor redmoon zero Linux - Software 2 01-01-2008 03:59 PM
cedega (winex) regedit? JesterDev Linux - Games 2 12-09-2004 04:23 PM
wine, regedit and registering .reg files phreaqy Linux - Software 0 04-02-2004 12:37 PM
Having trouble running regedit.exe under wine Homen_de_Pau Linux - Newbie 3 01-06-2004 01:18 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration