> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaromil [mailto:jaromil@dyne.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 2:28 AM
> To: T.J. Duchene; dng@???
> Subject: Re: [Dng] Too many man pages, too much complicated : systemd
>
> 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?
[T.J. ] "Semi-sure" would be an honest way to put it. I've extracted and scripted keys in gconf before. So yes, it is theoretically and practically possible when working with Gnome apps. Do I bother doing so with the Gnome environment itself? No, I do not. I "dropkick it to the curb." What I find distasteful about it is not the interface changes, but the overdependence on Javascript. Not much phases me after 25+ years, but I hate stupid.

The problem you are describing with keys not working is Gnome developers changing crap without properly documenting changes in keys, not the fact that they are using a database to keep track of settings. It's no different than upstream changing the config file format, and then not bothering to document things properly. We all know that has happened from time to time.


>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.

[T.J. ] There are advantages to both. Databases are much easier to write front ends for. It's all open code. I'm personally for using either method as long as it is documented properly, and the database used does not encumber the system.