On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 09:27:57AM +0200, Jaromil wrote:
> hi T.J.
>
> On 6 April 2015 01:37:23 CEST, "T.J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@???> wrote:
> > Fortunately, the Linux equivalents are user
> >account
> >based rather than system wide and can easily be cloned, modified, or if
> >necessary dumped.
>
>
> are you sure about this? every time I tried to port my desktop settings in
> gconf to new installation I did not succeed, they were hardly portable across
> different versions. Maybe is just me, however the flat file hierarchy that Jude
> mentions, a'la /sys and /proc, should be considered the "UNIX way", with the
> big advantage of inheriting filesystem operations like mount -o bind etc.
>

+1

I know very well that we have already had a registry in GNOME, and I
am among the harseholes who have *never* digested the gconf registry
nonsense-organisation and never managed to port gconfs across
different versions of GNOME (although I have very poor statistics on
that, let's say less than 20 cases...). IMHO centralising is never a
good option, and modularisation should be the norm. Binary conf has
brought only *problems*, while text files have survived for decades
(and please, don't bring again the "performance" argument, since
nobody can discern the difference between loading a text file or a
binary one....).

What really puzzles me is why if you love systemd that much you just
continue arguing about systemd on the ML of a Debian fork specifically
born to throw systemd away. Do you think you might be able to convince
us that systemd is *good* and *beautiful* and *necessary*? I don't
want to be saved, thanks ;)

My2Cents

KatolaZ

--
[ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ]
[ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ]
[ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ]
[ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ]