On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 04:47, Paul wrote: > Hi, > > > This at first read sounds like a candidate for stupid question of the > > year. But on reconsidering, maybe windows did something right by > > consolidating all those *.conf files scattered all over hell into one > > file > > I can't disagree more strongly with that if I tried. > > Sure it may be a slight pain to have a large number of conf files > in /etc, but when the registry gets damaged under Windows, that's it - > you're knackered. > > You also have the additional problem of having things infecting the > registry (such as malware/spyware hooks) which then proceed to infect > not just their own entries, but lots of other places to ensure the > replication. This has to be one of the best reasons there ever could be > *not* to have a single file registry. Linux is strong due to the > disparate config files which doesn't allow for such infections. > > Also you don't have very confusing keys which no-one understands! > > TTFN > > Paul IANAP, but I would think that a front end configuration manager would not be an altogether bad idea. Something that has a friendly regedt32 interface to all the config files in /etc and elsewhere. That way you are not putting all of your eggs in one basket, as windows does with the registry, but you have an easier front end for editing and backing up individual files. Just my ramblings -- Micheal <sundance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
