Re: Controversial: A New FRUGAL File System? Linux Registry (again)?

[Brian Beattie <beattie@beattie-home.net>]

On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 14:18, Bryan Henderson wrote:
> >M$ tried this with *.ini files. They were text file friendly, but got 
> unwieldy
> >pretty darn quick, when you started to automate other configuration data
> >in them. The same problem will progressively occur under Linux/UNIX
> >as software gets more complicated each year.
> 
> The progression in the Windows world wasn't because software got more 
> complicated -- it was because users got less sophisticated and more 
> demanding.  If Linux is to progress to where Windows is, then I agree that 
> anything like .ini files has to go.  But it would be wrong for Linux to 
> progress to where Windows is.  Windows is already there.  In moving from 
> .ini files to a registry, Windows moved ahead in certain areas and behind 
> in others.  Folks who benefitted from .ini files in DOS, then moved from 
> Windows to Linux.

Please excuse me, I'm an old fart and remember the days even before ini
files, though never fooled much with MS software.  I've always heard
that there was some problem with ini files, and that for this reason MS
went with the registry, but I was never too clear what the problem, I
sort of had the impression that it was lazy and incompetent Windows
programmers who could not manage their own configuration files, but
maybe that was just my own bias showing.

Can somebody tell be just what the problem with ini files was, that the
registry was supposed to solve?

-- 
Brian Beattie            | Experienced kernel hacker/embedded systems
beattie@beattie-home.net | programmer, direct or contract, short or
www.beattie-home.net     | long term, available immediately.

"Honor isn't about making the right choices.
It's about dealing with the consequences." -- Midori Koto