(no subject)
From: Dave Martel (nospam@nospam123.com)Date: 06/28/02
- Next message: Scallica: "Checkpoint Firewall Problem"
- Previous message: Dave Martel: "(no subject)"
- In reply to: : "Re: The Beginning Of The End For Micro$oft Reign Of Terror"
- Next in thread: 0§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí: "(no subject)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Dave Martel <nospam@nospam123.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:24:43 -0700
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 03:00:27 -0700, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <pan.2002.06.26.19.15.40.61294.175@nospam123.com>, Dave
> Martel <nospam@nospam123.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 03:49:05 -0700, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>>
>>> Why is it easier than the same entry in a text file? The process is
>>> entirely equivalent: find the appropriate config file / registry key,
>>> and alter values as appropriate.
>>
>>For one thing, Linux config files can contain comments and are very
>>well-documented so you have instructions right at the point where you
>>change the settings. For another, we have nothing to hide so we don't
>>need to use cryptic variable names and values like those frequently
>>found in the registry.
>
> Nobody is forced to use cryptic key names, or to leave registry data
> undocumented, or indeed to use the registry at all.
Those who have something to hide do. And judging by the tremendous number of
cryptic keynames and settings in the registry, someone has a lot to hide.
> A text config file
> is just as easy to implement in Windows; it's the programmer's choice.
> Normally a lazy choice, for example in freeware the programmer often
> can't be bothered to do a proper GUI.
You need to get your arguments straight. If text-based config is just as easy
as GUI config then it's not laziness keeping the Windows freeware programmer
from using the latter. :)
> If I don't document what happens when keys are altered, it's because I
> don't support the alteration. Users can mess with it at their own risk.
Or maybe it's just because you're too lazy to document all your settings?
>>However, it's silly to argue GUI config is "superior" to text config or
>>vice versa. Each has its advantages so it's all just a matter of
>>personal preference. But where the Windows registry removes that choice,
>>most Linux GUI applications use a text config file to store their
>>settings so users can decide for themselves wether to use the GUI or a
>>text editor. Most of us use both methods. If I know exactly what a
>>setting does I use the menu. For unfamiliar settings I prefer to be
>>guided by the comments in the text file. For changing a simple flag I
>>prefer the menu again. For making wholesale changes I find editing a
>>text file easier than repeatedly wading down through many levels of
>>menus. And if I can't readily find something in a maze of twisty little
>>menus, I can find it quickly in the text file by doing a text search for
>>a few keywords likely to appear in the adjacent comments (as opposed to
>>searching the registry, where you have to guess what the programmer
>>might have named an option variable and then when you find it there
>>aren't any comments to tell you what its allowed values are).
>
> You're just defending the primitive text-based config files of Linux.
You're just defending the bloated, unsecure, and unreliable Windows registry.
> Every single option that you mention is available to the Windows
> programmer - it's just that there is rarely a need for it.
And how many of those options are available to the *user* of the typical
Windows application?
> Maybe Linux
> programmers should write their software in such a way that the user
> doesn't have to pore over abstruse config files to make it work.
> (Reminiscent of the MSDOS game days.)
Maybe Microsoft should develop decent remote-access code so they don't *need*
a primitive networking solution like the Windows registry.
- Next message: Scallica: "Checkpoint Firewall Problem"
- Previous message: Dave Martel: "(no subject)"
- In reply to: : "Re: The Beginning Of The End For Micro$oft Reign Of Terror"
- Next in thread: 0§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí: "(no subject)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
