From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Joseph D. Wagner" Subject: RE: Contraversial: A New FRUGAL File System? Linux Registry (again)? Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 01:10:19 -0600 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <003901c39c59$6248dab0$0201a8c0@joe> References: <20031027063015.98B1332C6D@desire.actrix.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: Received: from ssa8.serverconfig.com ([209.51.129.179]:46233 "EHLO ssa8.serverconfig.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261217AbTJ0HKV convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2003 02:10:21 -0500 To: , "'Warren W. Gay VE3WWG'" , In-Reply-To: <20031027063015.98B1332C6D@desire.actrix.co.nz> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org I concur with Charles Manning [manningc2@actrix.gen.nz] that the registry is a good idea and would be valuable to Linux, and I unfortunately agree that the registry is too often abused. I must admit, though, that the idea of using a file system rather than a database as a registry is rather intriguing. Instead of creating a whole new API for a registry, you can simply use the existing VFS API and treat each file as a registry entry. However, Access Control Lists (ACL's) would be a must-have before such a file system registry is implemented or else both programs and users alike would surely abuse the registry. Personally, I think a registry on Linux should be held off until Linux has native support for ACL's. Trying to build a secure registry based upon the existing file system security architecture (read, write, execute; owner, group, everyone) would simply be too much of a hassle. Joseph Wagner > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Manning [mailto:manningc2@actrix.gen.nz] > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:36 AM > To: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: Contraversial: A New FRUGAL File System? Linux Registry > (again)? > > Warren > > I deal with various embedded systems, including Windows CE. > > Of the few OS concepts carried over from Windows to WinCE, the registry is > one. > > I can see some merit to the concept of a registry, in theory, in that it > makes a single configuration system in a single place. This makes > administration and configuration a bit simpler. However, the concept of a > single config point is very challenging when one deals with booting etc. > Windows CE has serious pain there since you need the registry to boot, but > where do you store the damn thing? WinCE now supports split registries to > address this. > > The Windows registry gets seriously abused too. I've seen it used for > everything from inter-process communications to implementing error logs > etc. > > When it comes to newbie users, I don't think they really get any benefit > from > using a registry. How many Windows users use regedit or know there's a > registry? Nope, they use the service's cute GUI config front-end. Same > for > your softer Linux user - they just use the GUI sysadm tools and don't have > to > worry where the configs are. > > Independently of registries, I think the concept of a frugal fs is a good > one > and likely to be of use to the embedded folk. > > -- CHarles > > > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" > in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html