Is there a good reason why there isn''t a central registry in Linux that programs can use to store their configuration stuff? OK, not even a "centeral" registry, but why not a Gnome registry or a KDE registry? It''d sure make it easier for my little programs to find their configuration files. I mean, look at that other thread about file paths! It''s so complicated! A central registry would sure make it easier. Current Projects: GK3 for Linux | Landscape Engine | Bug Hunt

Because
a) it isn''t a unix thing, so nobody would put it in the kernel, and
b) trying to get open source programmers to standardize on anything is like herding mental retardates, so nobody would use it if it were put elsewhere.

FWIW, KDE does have a directory tree it uses for settings. I assume GNOME does too.

How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

I guess it is the same reason why linux has bin-etc-lib directories.

It means that the whole OS relies quite heavily on the registry, and if it gets borked, your whole system gets borked. Surely you must have had problems with the Windows registry?

Stu

There is a Gnome registry, it''s called GConf. It has huge advantages over the Windows registry and simple configuration files (it is backend agnostic, small corruption can''t break more than a single key, the library to use it is really nice, applications can be notified of key changes immediately, et cetera).

quote: Is there a good reason why there isn''t a central registry in Linux that programs can use to store their configuration stuff?

There is -- it''s called /etc

Gnome has a registry-like system called GConf. KDE developers are mostly opposed to the idea because any large database begs to be corrupted. GConf gets around the idea by allowing different backends (dunno what the default is).

quote: Original post by stustill
It means that the whole OS relies quite heavily on the registry, and if it gets borked, your whole system gets borked. Surely you must have had problems with the Windows registry?

Stu

I don''t think the Windows registry has a patent on borking. The registry is one data structure, the linux filesystem is another; isn''t borking posisble with either?

Bork!

How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

There are several alternatives to a registry in Linux. You can store configuration information in the home directory (go to your home directory and type ls -a and you'll see a lot of files that begin with a period. These are generally the configuration files. System settings, on the other hand, are generally stored in the /etc directory.

And finally, there are the environmental variables. These variables can be accessed and set programmatically and manually. I don’t know when you would want to use an environmental variable over a config. file in your home directory, though.




[edited by - SpiffGQ on April 11, 2003 8:02:57 PM]

Sneftel: Correct me if I am wrong, but the Windows registry is held in only one file, if for whatever reason you lose that file, your system is really screwed. With linux, because everything is separated, if you were to accidentally delete one of them, chances are (unless it is an important module) that your system will not be greatly affected, whilst with Windows, you would have to reinstall (again!)!

Stu

quote: Original post by Flarelocke
KDE developers are mostly opposed to the idea because any large database begs to be corrupted. GConf gets around the idea by allowing different backends (dunno what the default is).

The default backend for GConf is a filesystem tree of xml files, pretty hard to corrupt unless your filesystem or the media it is stored on is broken (look in ~/.gconf or /etc/gconf and you can browse through it). GConf was written in a way that makes it really easy to replace the default backend, it''s just that so far no one has had any real problems with the default backend to cause a new one to be needed.