|
Home > Archive > alt.os.linux > December 2002 > Linux Registry Philosophy
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Linux Registry Philosophy
|
|
| Fredderic 2002-12-07, 12:24 am |
| I know linux purists hate me for this, but I've been contemplating the
concept of a registry under Linux.
The mere idea of a global registery seems to get everyone all bouncing
around and running away screaming "it's evil, it's evil".
But I think it's also neccesary. And since I haven't heard of any such
thing in existance, I was wondering about throwing around the idea to see
what people think. Honestly, putting aside your distaste of the concept,
what do people think would need to be done, to make sure it was done
properly? What features would it need to support, etc.
And besides which, last time I checked my gnome desktop was already doing
something akin to a registry idea for its own apps, just slower. And the
two are already trying to share data in some areas. A registry is just a
unification and optimisation of the concept.
I'm bringing this up, because yet again I was plesently suprised when my
Windoze standard-"open document" dialog allowed me to switch to thumnail
view while I was looking for a bunch of pictures to zip up and send to
someone. It also allowed me to open the file in my usual image viewer for a
closer look, right then and there. The major desktops which implement
standard dialogs, could well use such a feature. Perhaps if a virtual file
association along the lines of "default file browser" existed, one rule
could be that it had to be able to export a file browser widget to anything
that wanted one. So your default file browser would not only be there when
you open one of those folder icons in your desktop, or give a directory name
in the "run ..." dialog from the desktop menu, but would also pop up in the
standard file open dialogs. In fact, even said standard dialogs could
become a virtual "file association" (concept under a better name, of
course), so that if several applications export their own which conform to
the expected API, you could pick whichever one you want via a configuration
utility).
I accept that perhaps it's not for general use, that would preclude some
software from running on imbedded systems and the likes. But on such
systems you're probably not going to be running KDE or Gnome anyhow. 
So how about implementing it as a seperate unit, for the time being, having
it utilised by the major desktops such as KDE and Gnome. If it was
implemented seperately from either, but with input from both, the next
version of these desktops could support a compatible means to share a lot of
their configuration. Especially if the register daemon allowed a program to
create "soft links" between registry items, therefore allowing you "default"
one item to another. It should also save every single program having to be
able to read and write umpteen different configuration file formats, in
order to get the cross-application information they need to sanely get
application interoperation happening on a decent scale. (Including a more
intelligent clipboard)
I was basically thinking you could have a /etc/registry file which appart
from setting some registry-internals, would have a list of "application
registries" to import at start up; either in a registry.d directory, or a
list of filenames so the registries could be kept with the applications in
question. The list of filenames would have the advantage of preserving
"install order". Which may or may not be useful.
If each applications registry tree was loaded into a specified location:
/applications/author/application/...
(or thereabouts would do), and then appropriate portions were then mirrored
into a global tree (such as requested file associations) by the registry
daemon.
Each user would also have their own registry file on their account, which
would contain application portions:
/user/applications/author/application/...
Likewise this would be merged into the "virtual" global tree. There would
also be other bits and pieces in the user section, such as priority of file
associations where more than one binary claim a given executable.
(Presumably, the one with the highest priority, would be the "default
action".)
It may also be advisable for applications to have a "default user" part,
which is mirrored onto the users branch for that application, with any
changes they make overwriting the defaults. (the concept of a "default"
setting would also therefore exist, whereby th user overide was simply
removed from their registry allowing the original mirrored setting to show
through).
If the in-memory portion of the registry was essentially a cache, with the
disk-side version being kept in an optimised form to accelerate searching
for out-of-memory data, and the virtual structure was expressed well enough,
the idea may just well work satisfactorially for even the Linux folk to
consider.
It would even be quite possible to implement a psudo-filesystem which could
be mounted on demand (by a Gnome or KDE app) to re-create the old filesystem
should some software need it (a configuration option -- mount virtual
configuration directory).
| |
| +Chiron+ 2002-12-07, 12:24 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Fredderic tempted the fates in alt.os.linux
by proclaiming the following to be true:
> I know linux purists hate me for this, but I've been contemplating the
> concept of a registry under Linux.
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
Shut up.
- --
+Chiron+ ( Fortune's real live weird band names #86:
GnuPG Pub Key 848D1A2D -o) ) Bloody Stools
Linux Kernel 2.4.20 /\\ (
Slackware 8.1 *w00t* _\_v )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE98Y8Me8wcrYSNGi0RAiNhAK
DRXol25c2pYELh9sE5oEakjd+POgCd
HZNv
jyosqKo9gCbqEeA+4KmQuOI=
=iXaZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Paul Lutus 2002-12-07, 1:24 am |
| On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:07:57 +1000, Fredderic wrote:
> I know linux purists hate me for this, but I've been contemplating the
> concept of a registry under Linux.
Honest to God.
> The mere idea of a global registery seems to get everyone all bouncing
> around and running away screaming "it's evil, it's evil".
No, it is just a really stupid idea, only suitable for central control of
the user's computer and activities. It is to computers what autocracy is
to government.
It makes a system less reliable, less robust, less able to recover from a
single-point error.
It has NOTHING to say in its favor, unless you are Bill Gates and you
intend to control the user's actions and force even greater dependence on
the OS.
> But I think it's also neccesary.
What a minute. Where's your argument? What list of virtues were you
planning to present, and when?
> And besides which, last time I checked my gnome desktop was already
> doing something akin to a registry idea for its own apps, just slower.
> And the two are already trying to share data in some areas.
Data sharing is not the same thing at all.
> A registry
> is just a unification and optimisation of the concept.
No, a central registry has nothing to do with data sharing. They are
spearate concepts. If it did, then p2p file sharing would be impossible.
> I'm bringing this up, because yet again I was plesently suprised when my
> Windoze standard-"open document" dialog allowed me to switch to thumnail
> view while I was looking for a bunch of pictures to zip up and send to
> someone. It also allowed me to open the file in my usual image viewer
> for a closer look, right then and there.
You have just revealed your ignorance of this topic. Object orientation in
programming, specifically data encapsulation and sharing through
standardized interfaces, which is what you are discussing, has nothing
whatever to do with a central registry.
> The major desktops which
> implement standard dialogs, could well use such a feature.
This is beyond ignorance.
Enough. The remainder of your post wander away from its supposed topic.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
| |
| GilesX 2002-12-07, 1:24 am |
| On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 23:02:31 +0000, Paul Lutus wrote:
>
> Honest to God.
>
> You have just revealed your ignorance of this topic. Object orientation in
> programming, specifically data encapsulation and sharing through
> standardized interfaces, which is what you are discussing, has nothing
> whatever to do with a central registry.
>
> This is beyond ignorance.
>
> Enough. The remainder of your post wander away from its supposed topic.
The tone of your follow-up post was a little condescending don't you
think? Okay, a central registry is a B-A-D idea - I think so also, but as
I am about to demonstrate with a follow-up post of my own to the original
post, it *is* possible to verhmently disagree with a point, whilst remaining
corteous, taking time to explain arguments, and not making myself look
completely socially inept and ignorant.
Linux has always been developed by groups of highly talented,
*free-thinking* people - I feel that posting arrogant messages and not
taking the time to politely explain your points goes against that entire
principle, and could potentially discourage many users from initiating
future discussions, some of which may bring some amazing ideas and valid
points to the table.
My two pence worth...
| |
| GilesX 2002-12-07, 2:24 am |
| I am not overly keen on the idea of a Linux registry. At the moment, I
like the way that applications store their settings for two main reasons:
1 - As many, many, MANY windoze users have found out, it is not a good
idea to store all of your eggs in one basket. If the registry corrupts,
the system is pretty much good for nothing - there have been numerous
occurences of Windows even refusing to start after suffering a broken
registry. At least with the system the way it is now, if something goes
wrong, and one of my config files is trashed, it is fairly isolated. I'd
much rather have to go through the hassle of re-entering settings for one
application, than losing and having to re-enter all my preferences for
every one of my apps, or even worse, having to completely reinstall.
2 - I know where pretty much all of my configuration files will be stored,
and they are mostly human-readable. If for some reason I have trashed a
config so badly that I need to edit the configuration file by hand, I
simply open a text editor and make changes, which is a hell of a lot
easier than locating some obscure registry key in a specific registry
editor and figuring out what it means, and what I need to change it to.
As operating systems evolve and become more complex, so do the myriad of
configuration files. These all need to be organised in some way, but for
my money, I'd pick the "many files, but all stored in a logical
progressive manner" Linux method of doing things to the "one huge file
storing every single preference" Windows and (to some extent) Mac OS X
method.
| |
| Paul Lutus 2002-12-07, 3:24 am |
| On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 07:16:40 +0000, GilesX wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 23:02:31 +0000, Paul Lutus wrote:
>
>>
>> Honest to God.
>>
>> You have just revealed your ignorance of this topic. Object orientation in
>> programming, specifically data encapsulation and sharing through
>> standardized interfaces, which is what you are discussing, has nothing
>> whatever to do with a central registry.
>>
>> This is beyond ignorance.
>>
>> Enough. The remainder of your post wander away from its supposed topic.
>
> The tone of your follow-up post was a little condescending don't you
> think?
How does this relate to the topic?
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
| |
| GilesX 2002-12-07, 3:24 am |
| On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 00:36:24 +0000, Paul Lutus wrote:
>
> How does this relate to the topic?
It doesn't, but it certainly made *me* feel a lot better...
| |
|
| In article <3df18e37_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, Fredderic wrote:
> I know linux purists hate me for this, but I've been contemplating the
> concept of a registry under Linux.
>
Well then, create one. See if anyone uses it. There's a reason no
registry exists for real operating systems.
The MS registry, like most MS solutions, is simply a kludge - peroid.
- Kurt
| |
| Martin Blume 2002-12-07, 6:24 am |
|
Fredderic <fredderic@iprimus.com.au> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
3df18e37_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> I know linux purists hate me for this, but I've been contemplating the
> concept of a registry under Linux.
There is already a "registry" in *NIX, called /etc/*. Only it is much, much
better than what has been brought up by M$.
Look at the various standards proposed by the Linux Standards Base, File
Hierarchy Standard.
The /etc/ approach follows the UNIX approach:
- do only one little thing
- do only that
- do it well
- do not have any side-effects
By doing atomic, orthogonal things and by being able to combine them into
something bigger, you are able to create big things out of small building
blocks.
> But I think it's also neccesary.
> What features would it need to support, etc.
Why? What features are you missing from /etc/ ?
>
> I'm bringing this up, because yet again I was plesently suprised when my
> Windoze standard-"open document" dialog allowed me to switch to thumnail
> view while I was looking for a bunch of pictures to zip up and send to
> someone. It also allowed me to open the file in my usual image viewer for
a
> closer look, right then and there. The major desktops which implement
> standard dialogs, could well use such a feature. Perhaps if a virtual
file
> association along the lines of "default file browser" existed, one rule
> could be that it had to be able to export a file browser widget to
anything
> that wanted one. So your default file browser would not only be there
when
> you open one of those folder icons in your desktop, or give a directory
name
> in the "run ..." dialog from the desktop menu, but would also pop up in
the
> standard file open dialogs. In fact, even said standard dialogs could
> become a virtual "file association" (concept under a better name, of
> course), so that if several applications export their own which conform to
> the expected API, you could pick whichever one you want via a
configuration
> utility).
There is already such a mechanism, implemented by environment variables. If
you wnat to edit something, a well-written program starts up the editor
which is defined in your env var $EDITOR, if it wants to print, it "prints"
to $PRINTER. Flexible, expendable, concise, short, editable with any text
editor. Try repairing your registtry with EDLIN!
What you are missing most is a default viewer for each document type and a
method to access it from every program. Something along the apsfilter
printer utility combined with a viewer and a method to call it from every
program.
>
> Each user would also have their own registry file on their account, which
> would contain application portions:
> [...]
> It may also be advisable for applications to have a "default user" part,
> which is mirrored onto the users branch for that application, with any
>
You can do that with
/opt/my_killer_app/etc/*.rc having network-wide defaults (/opt/my_killer_app
can then be mounted read-only over the network)
/etc/my_killer_app.rc having defaults for this machine (depending on the
hardware and purpose of this machine)
/home/<user>/.my_killer_app.rc defaults for this <user> (what colors, ...)
$ my_killer_app --color=dark_blue invocation by the user, overriding
anything that is specified in the configuration files
Regards
Martin
| |
| Joe Fredrickson 2002-12-07, 7:24 am |
| Sat, 7 Dec 2002 05:05 pm will from hence forward be known as the day +Chiron+
blabbered:
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
>
> Shut up.
awww come-on +Chiron+ he did waffle on seeminglessly for all eternity.
:P
--
remember this is the sequence of events, in no particular order
Registered Linux User 282072
<www.volutin.net -- everything irrelevant>
| |
| Joe Fredrickson 2002-12-07, 8:24 am |
| Sat, 7 Dec 2002 04:07 pm will from hence forward be known as the day
Fredderic blabbered:
> I know linux purists hate me for this, but I've been contemplating the
> concept of a registry under Linux.
You've been contemplating it have you?
Do you have a headache? No? Maybe you're very much insane then!
> The mere idea of a global registery seems to get everyone all bouncing
> around and running away screaming "it's evil, it's evil".
Well it is.
A windows "global" registry stores _everything_ about *every* program.
Nothing is really stored in config files (well except little colour prefs)
so if I come along and issue (from DOS) del c:\windows\user.dat, guess
what? Your wind0w$ install is stuffed. Not too mention you have no (none
what so ever) application data/options for any installed application.
There is one reason its evil. Want another? Or was it shattering enough?
> But I think it's also neccesary. And since I haven't heard of any such
> thing in existance, I was wondering about throwing around the idea to see
> what people think. Honestly, putting aside your distaste of the concept,
> what do people think would need to be done, to make sure it was done
> properly? What features would it need to support, etc.
OK Trying to be supportive of the idea? (Note to others it is very late in
the morning and still quite dark outside, I may be unwise in judgement).
To be done:
- Basically you would have to merge every file & directory in /etc
Features:
- It would have to be universally writeable. (non-root priveledges *shudder*)
- It would (for speed) need to be a binary database.
> And besides which, last time I checked my gnome desktop was already doing
> something akin to a registry idea for its own apps, just slower. And the
> two are already trying to share data in some areas. A registry is just a
> unification and optimisation of the concept.
This isnt really a "registry" in the context you are refering to it by.
GNOME applications all use a standard set of libraries called lib-gnome and
also have a single configuration folder so simple maintenance and locality.
This doesnt mean they have one huge config file where every application (that
uses lib-gnome) stores its config information. It means that it has single
config files (or multiple) for each application which then prevents complete
system corruption and allows more simple (manual) configuration.
> I'm bringing this up, because yet again I was plesently suprised when my
> Windoze standard-"open document" dialog allowed me to switch to thumnail
> view while I was looking for a bunch of pictures to zip up and send to
> someone. It also allowed me to open the file in my usual image viewer for
> a closer look, right then and there. The major desktops which implement
> standard dialogs, could well use such a feature. Perhaps if a virtual file
> association along the lines of "default file browser" existed, one rule
> could be that it had to be able to export a file browser widget to anything
> that wanted one. So your default file browser would not only be there when
> you open one of those folder icons in your desktop, or give a directory
> name in the "run ..." dialog from the desktop menu, but would also pop up
> in the standard file open dialogs. In fact, even said standard dialogs
> could become a virtual "file association" (concept under a better name, of
> course), so that if several applications export their own which conform to
> the expected API, you could pick whichever one you want via a configuration
> utility).
How is that (if any) relevent to a universal registry???
Besides the functionality you speak of exists already in KDE and GNOME.
-- By the way last time I checked they were the major desktops.
> So how about implementing it as a seperate unit, for the time being, having
> it utilised by the major desktops such as KDE and Gnome.
Thats a great idea.
Lets make a Linux standard (and something that the system relies one) that
can only be used and accessed if the user uses KDE or GNOME.
You've obviously contemplated this for a *loooonnnnngggg* time.
> If it was implemented seperately from either, but with input from both, the
> next version of these desktops could support a compatible means to share a
> lot of their configuration.
When in Rome do as the Romans do.
If you do not understand my inference here then maybe you should re-read the
paragraph on how your GNOME applications work, then come back and think again
> Especially if the register daemon allowed a program to create "soft links"
> between registry items, therefore allowing you "default" one item to
> another. It should also save every single program having to be able to
> read and write umpteen different configuration file formats, in order to
> get the cross-application information they need to sanely get application
> interoperation happening on a decent scale.
Application interaction is controlled by the user. If the user knows what to
do and how to do it then it will work properly and efficiently. Apparently
you are not one of these users.
> (Including a more intelligent clipboard)
As above.
Clipboard (under WMaker) works fine for me and I dont even have any clipboard
software packages installed, just the standard base utils.
> I was basically thinking you could have a /etc/registry file which appart
> from setting some registry-internals, would have a list of "application
> registries" to import at start up; either in a registry.d directory, or a
> list of filenames so the registries could be kept with the applications in
> question.
Why change every application in Linux too look for the location of its config
files in a "registry" file? Why not just leave it as is where the application
knows that its config files exist in its root/config folder and in the users
home directory folder for that application?
> The list of filenames would have the advantage of preserving "install
> order". Which may or may not be useful.
Such a thing could just as easily be obtained by reading the contents of
/var/db/pkg/... and determining the date/time stamp of each entries creation.
(well it wouldnt work after updates, maybe not to sure?)...
But either way there is no seeable reason for me to have such a list.
> If each applications registry tree was loaded into a specified location:
[...snip...]
As above why change to a 3 step process when a one step one allready exists.
> It may also be advisable for applications to have a "default user" part,
> which is mirrored onto the users branch for that application, with any
> changes they make overwriting the defaults. (the concept of a "default"
> setting would also therefore exist, whereby th user overide was simply
> removed from their registry allowing the original mirrored setting to show
> through).
Or you could just restore the defaults. Or just change back what you wanted
manually? Once again 1 -> 3 step process.... why?
> If the in-memory portion of the registry was essentially a cache, with the
> disk-side version being kept in an optimised form to accelerate searching
> for out-of-memory data, and the virtual structure was expressed well
> enough, the idea may just well work satisfactorially for even the Linux
> folk to consider.
Your implementation ideas seem at least well thought about.
Perhaps not too well researched though.
> It would even be quite possible to implement a psudo-filesystem which could
> be mounted on demand (by a Gnome or KDE app) to re-create the old
> filesystem should some software need it (a configuration option -- mount
> virtual configuration directory).
So let me get this straight? You want to "mount" the registry into RAM on all
application start-ups (everytime something runs) then let the app read the
data it needs and then unmount the registry again... hmm intersting.
~ du -sm /etc
6 /etc
Im not trying to be mean or anything but your idea stinks.
--
remember this is the sequence of events, in no particular order
Registered Linux User 282072
<www.volutin.net -- everything irrelevant>
| |
| Rogerb 2002-12-07, 8:24 am |
| On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 15:07:57 +1000, Fredderic <fredderic@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> I know linux purists hate me for this, but I've been contemplating the
> concept of a registry under Linux.
Your right.
| |
| Joe Fredrickson 2002-12-07, 8:24 am |
| Sun, 8 Dec 2002 12:56 am will from hence forward be known as the day Rogerb
blabbered:
> Your right.
Nope. You (and the OP) are wrong.
We dont hate the OP for contemplating making a change to the Linux system.
But we would be disgusted if he actually came to the idea that this idea
was a sensible one. Or heaven forbid tried to implement it.
--
remember this is the sequence of events, in no particular order
Registered Linux User 282072
<www.volutin.net -- everything irrelevant>
| |
|
| Fredderic wrote:
> I know linux purists hate me for this, but I've been contemplating the
> concept of a registry under Linux.
> (snip)
Devil's Advocate Dept: Maybe he's Bill Gates in disguise...
| |
| Peter T. Breuer 2002-12-07, 9:25 am |
| Martin Blume <mblume_nospam@ freesurf.ch> wrote:
> Fredderic <fredderic@iprimus.com.au> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> 3df18e37_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>> I know linux purists hate me for this, but I've been contemplating the
>> concept of a registry under Linux.
> There is already a "registry" in *NIX, called /etc/*. Only it is much, much
Hey! I was going to say that.
Peter
| |
| Rogerb 2002-12-07, 9:25 am |
| On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 14:02:09 GMT, Joe Fredrickson <joe@volutin.net> wrote:
> Sun, 8 Dec 2002 12:56 am will from hence forward be known as the day Rogerb
> blabbered:
>
>> Your right.
>
> Nope. You (and the OP) are wrong.
>
> We dont hate the OP for contemplating making a change to the Linux system.
> But we would be disgusted if he actually came to the idea that this idea
> was a sensible one. Or heaven forbid tried to implement it.
>
Like dah ah. Sure we do. A hundred million windows users
searching for the anykey.
| |
| Steve 2002-12-07, 10:24 am |
| And very well stated, I might add.....
| |
| Steve 2002-12-07, 10:24 am |
| If one likes features in Windows, one should keep on using it. If
one likes those features found in Windows, which can't be found with Linux,
then one should use Windows.
Linux has a feature that is liked by most, it
is called 'Dual Boot'. Linux makes it extremely easy to play nice with
others, even though those others aren't playing nice.
> I'm bringing this up, because yet again I was plesently suprised when my
> Windoze standard-"open document" dialog allowed me to switch to thumnail
> view while I was looking for a bunch of pictures to zip up and send to
> someone. It also allowed me to open the file in my usual image viewer
> for a closer look, right then and there. The major desktops which
> implement standard dialogs, could well use such a feature. Perhaps if a
> virtual file association along the lines of "default file browser"
> existed, one rule could be that it had to be able to export a file
> browser widget to anything that wanted one. So your default file
> browser would not only be there when you open one of those folder icons
> in your desktop, or give a directory name in the "run ..." dialog from
> the desktop menu, but would also pop up in the standard file open
> dialogs. In fact, even said standard dialogs could become a virtual
> "file association" (concept under a better name, of course), so that if
> several applications export their own which conform to the expected API,
> you could pick whichever one you want via a configuration utility).
>
| |
| Cybe R. Wizard 2002-12-07, 12:24 pm |
| On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:44:29 +0000, Steve wrote:
> Linux has a feature that is liked by most, it is called 'Dual Boot'.
> Linux makes it extremely easy to play nice with others, even though
> those others aren't playing nice.
That /was/ a good feature while I got used to using my Libranet-Debian
distro. Then, once used to it, I decided it was time for Linux to play
not-so-nice with Winduhs.
Linux made it extremely easy to play not-so-nice, too. Winduhs? Gone the
way of the dinosaurs. Linux? The Great Comet. (or meteorite, if you
prefer/believe)
One good thing I will wsay about Winduhs; it saved me a bunch of HD space
to later put to good use.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Unofficial "Wizard of Odds", A.H.P.
Original PORG" Water Wizard", R.P.
"Wize(ned) Wizard", A.P.F-P-Y.
Barely Tolerated Wizard, A.J.L & A.A.L
| |
| Jon Portnoy 2002-12-07, 12:24 pm |
| In article <slrnav33oc.bqh.Chiron_Files@raven.home>, +Chiron+ wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Fredderic tempted the fates in alt.os.linux
> by proclaiming the following to be true:
>
>> I know linux purists hate me for this, but I've been contemplating the
>> concept of a registry under Linux.
>
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
>
> Shut up.
Concur.
--
Jon Portnoy
| |
|
| In article <92nI9.4568$B03.10335@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Joe Fredrickson wrote:
>
> OK Trying to be supportive of the idea? (Note to others it is very late in
> the morning and still quite dark outside, I may be unwise in judgement).
>
Oh, sounds like bedtime....
- Kurt
| |
| Jeremy Petzold 2002-12-08, 12:24 am |
| yes I have also thought that a Linux registry would be a good idea. you
should have a standard general layout for text files that hold the
configurations of the applications, and they should be XML files so that the
configuration can easily be supported by 3rd party apps as well as the
program. after this is done, it will make it easy for KDE and Gnome to use
as a standard location to look for new apps to add to there Start menues
etc. this wil also make integrating applkication together under a single UI
easier(if one wished to). it should also be a live filesystem so that when
an app is installed it will imeadiatly register with the system.
I think that a system like this would be better than the MS way since a
human can read the config files and the stuff is XML. plus it will give a
standard location for WM and DE to grab the information for their menues and
make integrating diffrent WM and DEs on a single system easier.
"Fredderic" <fredderic@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3df18e37_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> I know linux purists hate me for this, but I've been contemplating the
> concept of a registry under Linux.
>
> The mere idea of a global registery seems to get everyone all bouncing
> around and running away screaming "it's evil, it's evil".
>
> But I think it's also neccesary. And since I haven't heard of any such
> thing in existance, I was wondering about throwing around the idea to see
> what people think. Honestly, putting aside your distaste of the concept,
> what do people think would need to be done, to make sure it was done
> properly? What features would it need to support, etc.
>
> And besides which, last time I checked my gnome desktop was already doing
> something akin to a registry idea for its own apps, just slower. And the
> two are already trying to share data in some areas. A registry is just a
> unification and optimisation of the concept.
>
> I'm bringing this up, because yet again I was plesently suprised when my
> Windoze standard-"open document" dialog allowed me to switch to thumnail
> view while I was looking for a bunch of pictures to zip up and send to
> someone. It also allowed me to open the file in my usual image viewer for
a
> closer look, right then and there. The major desktops which implement
> standard dialogs, could well use such a feature. Perhaps if a virtual
file
> association along the lines of "default file browser" existed, one rule
> could be that it had to be able to export a file browser widget to
anything
> that wanted one. So your default file browser would not only be there
when
> you open one of those folder icons in your desktop, or give a directory
name
> in the "run ..." dialog from the desktop menu, but would also pop up in
the
> standard file open dialogs. In fact, even said standard dialogs could
> become a virtual "file association" (concept under a better name, of
> course), so that if several applications export their own which conform to
> the expected API, you could pick whichever one you want via a
configuration
> utility).
>
> I accept that perhaps it's not for general use, that would preclude some
> software from running on imbedded systems and the likes. But on such
> systems you're probably not going to be running KDE or Gnome anyhow.
>
> So how about implementing it as a seperate unit, for the time being,
having
> it utilised by the major desktops such as KDE and Gnome. If it was
> implemented seperately from either, but with input from both, the next
> version of these desktops could support a compatible means to share a lot
of
> their configuration. Especially if the register daemon allowed a program
to
> create "soft links" between registry items, therefore allowing you
"default"
> one item to another. It should also save every single program having to
be
> able to read and write umpteen different configuration file formats, in
> order to get the cross-application information they need to sanely get
> application interoperation happening on a decent scale. (Including a more
> intelligent clipboard)
>
> I was basically thinking you could have a /etc/registry file which appart
> from setting some registry-internals, would have a list of "application
> registries" to import at start up; either in a registry.d directory, or a
> list of filenames so the registries could be kept with the applications in
> question. The list of filenames would have the advantage of preserving
> "install order". Which may or may not be useful.
>
> If each applications registry tree was loaded into a specified location:
> /applications/author/application/...
> (or thereabouts would do), and then appropriate portions were then
mirrored
> into a global tree (such as requested file associations) by the registry
> daemon.
>
> Each user would also have their own registry file on their account, which
> would contain application portions:
> /user/applications/author/application/...
> Likewise this would be merged into the "virtual" global tree. There would
> also be other bits and pieces in the user section, such as priority of
file
> associations where more than one binary claim a given executable.
> (Presumably, the one with the highest priority, would be the "default
> action".)
>
> It may also be advisable for applications to have a "default user" part,
> which is mirrored onto the users branch for that application, with any
> changes they make overwriting the defaults. (the concept of a "default"
> setting would also therefore exist, whereby th user overide was simply
> removed from their registry allowing the original mirrored setting to show
> through).
>
> If the in-memory portion of the registry was essentially a cache, with the
> disk-side version being kept in an optimised form to accelerate searching
> for out-of-memory data, and the virtual structure was expressed well
enough,
> the idea may just well work satisfactorially for even the Linux folk to
> consider.
>
> It would even be quite possible to implement a psudo-filesystem which
could
> be mounted on demand (by a Gnome or KDE app) to re-create the old
filesystem
> should some software need it (a configuration option -- mount virtual
> configuration directory).
>
>
>
>
| |
| Joe Fredrickson 2002-12-08, 4:24 am |
| Sun, 8 Dec 2002 05:22 pm will from hence forward be known as the day Jeremy
Petzold blabbered:
> yes I have also thought that a Linux registry would be a good idea.
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
And you top-posted? Not going to make too many friends for your ideas.
--
remember this is the sequence of events, in no particular order
Registered Linux User 282072
<www.volutin.net -- everything irrelevant>
| |
|
| In <news:3df18e37_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Fredderic wrote:
> I know linux purists hate me for this, but I've been contemplating
> the concept of a registry under Linux.
Contemplate all you want... This will never happen. I can't even begin
to imagine what security risks would be involved in greating such a
thing. Not to mension that this would have to be a binary file for
speed, which means you can't edit it with a texteditor when somthing
goes wrong.
When installing new apps, the installation would have to edit the
registry, instead of just dumbing a couple of files into some dir. So
if something goes wrong you are fu*%&¤. And what about your boot-
scripts would they be merged into this file, this would make it hard to
customize your boot up, and make it impossible to chmod a file you
don't want to execute.
You have got to be trolling... and obviously I fell for it.
--
will
| |
| Robert Newson 2002-12-08, 8:24 am |
| Jeremy Petzold wrote:
> yes I have also thought that a Linux registry would be a good idea. you
> should have a standard general layout for text files that hold the
> configurations of the applications, and they should be XML files so that the
> configuration can easily be supported by 3rd party apps as well as the
funny, the *nix "registry" already *IS* supported by 3rd party apps...any
[plain] text editor I've used can handle them.
> program. after this is done, it will make it easy for KDE and Gnome to use
> as a standard location to look for new apps to add to there Start menues
> etc. this wil also make integrating applkication together under a single UI
Unlike your spelchequer.
> easier(if one wished to). it should also be a live filesystem so that when
> an app is installed it will imeadiatly register with the system.
>
> I think that a system like this would be better than the MS way since a
> human can read the config files and the stuff is XML. plus it will give a
The *nix "registry" already *IS* human readable, without all the excess guff
of XML.
> standard location for WM and DE to grab the information for their menues and
> make integrating diffrent WM and DEs on a single system easier.
| |
|
| Joe Fredrickson wrote:
> Sat, 7 Dec 2002 04:07 pm will from hence forward be known as the day
> Fredderic blabbered:
>
>> I know linux purists hate me for this, but I've been contemplating the
>> concept of a registry under Linux.
>
> You've been contemplating it have you?
> Do you have a headache? No? Maybe you're very much insane then!
>
>> The mere idea of a global registery seems to get everyone all bouncing
>> around and running away screaming "it's evil, it's evil".
>
> Well it is.
> A windows "global" registry stores _everything_ about *every* program.
> Nothing is really stored in config files (well except little colour prefs)
> so if I come along and issue (from DOS) del c:\windows\user.dat, guess
> what? Your wind0w$ install is stuffed. Not too mention you have no (none
> what so ever) application data/options for any installed application.
rm -fr /etc
<snip>
| |
|
| Fredderic wrote:
> I know linux purists hate me for this, but I've been contemplating the
> concept of a registry under Linux.
>
<SNIP>
Does the existing nix registry work? YES.
Does the existing nix registry work well? YES.
Is it possible to fix the existing nix registry with standard editors? YES.
Is it possible to fix the existing nix registry from a non gui mode? YES.
Does the existing nix registry handle multi concurrent users? YES.
Is it possible to navigate easily through the existing nix registry? YES.
Is it possible to modify the existing nix registry and restart the affected
applications without rebooting the computer? YES.
Why do you want to introduce a registry?
That was a rhetorical question, you do not need to answer it, in fact I
insist don't answer it, I've already seem your massive post.
Just to go off topic here. Why do people constantly feel the need to have
to point out someone's use of microsoft mail clients and then use this to
accuse people of being trolls? We in the nix community know that nix based
workstations are not prolific throughout the workplace and therefore there
is a very high chance that nix users at work will have to use windows
computers. That does not make them trolls. Similarily, just because
someone's idea does not meet someone else's notions of how things should be
done, does not make them a troll.
Pep.
| |
|
| In article <EMYI9.15$db4.164@news.uk.colt.net>, Pep wrote:
>
> Just to go off topic here. Why do people constantly feel the need to have
> to point out someone's use of microsoft mail clients and then use this to
> accuse people of being trolls? We in the nix community know that nix based
> workstations are not prolific throughout the workplace and therefore there
> is a very high chance that nix users at work will have to use windows
Man, wish I had time to read newsgroups at work!
> computers. That does not make them trolls. Similarily, just because
> someone's idea does not meet someone else's notions of how things should be
> done, does not make them a troll.
>
Usually I agree with your above statement. On two occasions I have seen some
twit posting a link to his 'brand new linux help forum' that he just put
online. Both times the post was made wit MS OE. Now, that I think is
worth pointing out. Most other times I view it as irrelevant though.
- Kurt
| |
| Joe Fredrickson 2002-12-09, 4:25 am |
| Mon, 9 Dec 2002 07:24 pm will from hence forward be known as the day Pep
blabbered:
> rm -fr /etc
Another classic example why you should never use root.
And besides I have 3 or 4 different backups of /etc anyway.
--
Mushrooms always grow in damp places and so they look like umbrellas.
Registered Linux User 282072
<www.volutin.net -- everything irrelevant>
| |
| Andy Clayton 2002-12-09, 10:25 am |
| Pep wrote:
> Just to go off topic here. Why do people constantly feel the need to have
> to point out someone's use of microsoft mail clients and then use this to
> accuse people of being trolls? We in the nix community know that nix based
> workstations are not prolific throughout the workplace and therefore there
> is a very high chance that nix users at work will have to use windows
> computers. That does not make them trolls. Similarily, just because
> someone's idea does not meet someone else's notions of how things should be
> done, does not make them a troll.
I guess "freedom of choice" is hard to acheive... even from the NIX world.
Give some dudes a few millions and they probably will create and MS like
monopoly as in "if you don't use what I use: you're a moron and I'll destroy
you" kind off philisophy...
| |
| Paul Lutus 2002-12-09, 11:25 am |
| On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 08:44:21 +0000, Pep wrote:
/ ...
> Just to go off topic here. Why do people constantly feel the need to
> have to point out someone's use of microsoft mail clients and then use
> this to accuse people of being trolls?
It is entirely unjustified -- unless the people in question really are
trolls. Then the fact that a person is top-posting, running OE, wrong
about Linux and has wandered away from any valid topic, together make a
convincing case.
> We in the nix community know that nix based workstations are not
> prolific throughout the workplace and therefore there is a very high
> chance that nix users at work will have to use windows computers.
Not if they are posturing as Linux gurus. It is very simple, really.
Example -- if I make a claim about a complex shell script that I have
posted, someone on a Windows machine cannot test it and must either accept
or reject it on other than direct evidence. They are handicapped.
> That does not make them trolls. Similarily, just because someone's idea
> does not meet someone else's notions of how things should be done, does
> not make them a troll.
But there really are trolls, and there really are people who, by running
Windows, remove themselves from any meaningful, active participation in
certain discussions.
Funally, OE users must top post. There is no flexibility about this
(unless the user laboriously rearranges his post by hand, each and every
time). This by itself is the mark of someone not serious about Usenet --
or Linux.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
| |
| Z-Man 2002-12-09, 11:25 am |
| First off paul...this is one of the most moronic posts I've seen from
you. Yes...I know I'm top posting:
Sorry, I come from the old school of usenet (when the internet was still
darpanet). It's only been recently, when considering the whole last 25+
years (i.e. the last 5 or 6 yeas), that someone decided they didn't like
top posting. In the old school, anything but top posting was bad
netiquette. All this crap of inserting comments between others comments
is crap....and if someone is reading my reply, they probably already
read the original post in the thread. So why the hell would one want to
have to scroll past the crap they already read, to get to the new stuff.
It's stupid. And...I know this sounds like trolling....it's not....it's
just my opinion!
Now on to the issues. The inherent behavior of every thread, anywhere on
usenet, is to wander away from any valid point, the original point of
the thread, or any semblance of logic concerning either. That doesn't
make it trolling, it's the nature of conversation. Dynamic!
Lots of people on windows machines can test complex shell scripts you
may or may not have posted. I use linux, but I also have 2 windows
machines, both of which have cygwin/Xfree86. In fact, that's how I use
my linux box from both windows machines. I use them as remote X servers.
Mostly, cygwin using bash is fully capable or running/testing most
scripts. But, the key here is that I use both windows and linux. Your
comments on the issue are asinine, and have no basis.
Finally, no...OE users don't have to top post. I use OE on occasion for
text groups, as it is relatively stable and low overhead. I have top
posts, followed the lemmings and posted crap comments in the middle of
other crap comments, and forced people to scroll to the bottom of the
original post, all of the other BS replies before mine, and then finally
find mine at the bottom, even though they had already read all of those
other posts in the thread.
W do prefer linux, but the truth is, there are just some things that I
or my wife want to use, that are NOT available for linux. When it is
possible to utilize more than one and have the best of both worlds, why not?
Z
Paul Lutus wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 08:44:21 +0000, Pep wrote:
>
> / ...
>
>
>>Just to go off topic here. Why do people constantly feel the need to
>>have to point out someone's use of microsoft mail clients and then use
>>this to accuse people of being trolls?
>
>
> It is entirely unjustified -- unless the people in question really are
> trolls. Then the fact that a person is top-posting, running OE, wrong
> about Linux and has wandered away from any valid topic, together make a
> convincing case.
>
>
>>We in the nix community know that nix based workstations are not
>>prolific throughout the workplace and therefore there is a very high
>>chance that nix users at work will have to use windows computers.
>
>
> Not if they are posturing as Linux gurus. It is very simple, really.
> Example -- if I make a claim about a complex shell script that I have
> posted, someone on a Windows machine cannot test it and must either accept
> or reject it on other than direct evidence. They are handicapped.
>
>
>>That does not make them trolls. Similarily, just because someone's idea
>>does not meet someone else's notions of how things should be done, does
>>not make them a troll.
>
>
> But there really are trolls, and there really are people who, by running
> Windows, remove themselves from any meaningful, active participation in
> certain discussions.
>
> Funally, OE users must top post. There is no flexibility about this
> (unless the user laboriously rearranges his post by hand, each and every
> time). This by itself is the mark of someone not serious about Usenet --
> or Linux.
>
| |
| Peter T. Breuer 2002-12-09, 12:25 pm |
| Z-Man <zman@thezone.net> wrote:
> First off paul...this is one of the most moronic posts I've seen from
Well, that would be a record breaker!
> you. Yes...I know I'm top posting:
> Sorry, I come from the old school of usenet (when the internet was still
> darpanet). It's only been recently, when considering the whole last 25+
So do I. At least from 78. I was on janet before it joined with arpa
and the internet came up ..
> years (i.e. the last 5 or 6 yeas), that someone decided they didn't like
> top posting. In the old school, anything but top posting was bad
You're misremembering - I assure you it's always been this way, within
my memory at least! For the simple reason that the stuff was transported
on the backs of camels until fairly recently, and bandwidth was very
limited.
It was also then de rigeur to post a sumary of replies received. The
replies were sent by mail. You would get a summary post with
paragraphs excised from different correspondents, with a short
commentary between each (A says .... but B says ...).
> netiquette. All this crap of inserting comments between others comments
> is crap....and if someone is reading my reply, they probably already
> read the original post in the thread. So why the hell would one want to
One doesn't "scroll past". One replies within 4 lines of the top. And
NO, I haven't read the previous post, and if I have, I've forgotten it
already. I get hundreds of mails and thousands of news posts a day.
I need the context, but only the context and nothing else.
> have to scroll past the crap they already read, to get to the new stuff.
They don't. You know they don't. You can SEE they don't. This post is
an example.
> Now on to the issues. The inherent behavior of every thread, anywhere on
> usenet, is to wander away from any valid point, the original point of
> the thread, or any semblance of logic concerning either. That doesn't
> make it trolling, it's the nature of conversation. Dynamic!
True.
> Lots of people on windows machines can test complex shell scripts you
> may or may not have posted. I use linux, but I also have 2 windows
> machines, both of which have cygwin/Xfree86. In fact, that's how I use
Then please tell me how to launch a shutdown script at 12pm every
night, to reboot it into linux. The techs have been trying to do that
with cygwin scripts for weeks. They keep mumbling something about MS
bugs.
> Finally, no...OE users don't have to top post. I use OE on occasion for
Good!
Peter
| |
| +Chiron+ 2002-12-09, 12:25 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Pep tempted the fates in alt.os.linux
by proclaiming the following to be true:
> Just to go off topic here. Why do people constantly feel the need to have
> to point out someone's use of microsoft mail clients and then use this to
> accuse people of being trolls?
You're attempting to combine two very different things into a single
thought.
1. All MSOE users are Trolls.
Do you have any direct evidence to support this statement?
However, if what you know is *why* the more experienced users are so quick
to single out an MSOE post as a sign of certain stupidity, just take a look
at ANY of "Bruce Burhans"'s posts.
> We in the nix community
Who is this "we" that you are referring to?
> know that nix based workstations are not prolific throughout the workplace
> and therefore there is a very high chance that nix users at work will have to
> use windows computers.
I suppose your employers don't mind if you read/post to Usenet on company
time, in this economy, either, right?
ISP's Nix Forum Support
Scared and lazy, ISP's make helping a crime
http://www.broadbandreports.com/sho...24145?mode=flat
You might wanna re-think your justification there, chuckles.
If you're posting to Usenet, FROM work, you've got bigger issues to fry.
> That does not make them trolls.
Absolutely true.
However, it *does* make them clueless and lazy assholes.
> Similarily, just because someone's idea does not meet someone else's
> notions of how things should be done, does not make them a troll.
Oh XXXXing please. I *KNOW* you're not trying to DEFEND that assholes
"idea" of making *nix become "just like" M$....right?
Man, if you weren't already so pitiable I'd be roasting you right now.
*linux* are linux-based newsgroups.
You shouldn't be posting here unless you actively use Linux in one form or
another.
If you *do* choose to post here, you should be making every effort possible
to do so FROM a *nix-based client.
If you chose to ignore all of the abvove, post to &nix groups with MOSE,
THEN spout off about "how hard" *nix is and "Wouldn't it be easier if we
made it just like M$ does?" then you deserve every XXXXing flame you
receive. Get a XXXXing clue already.
BTW:
> User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1
You *do* realize that Knode is a broken & shitty excuse for a news client
as well, right?
Knode has become the new refuge for all these wanna-be *nix weenies that
don't want to be singled-out for using MSOE. KDE/Knode is just as lame.
- --
+Chiron+ ( Fortune's real live weird band names #510:
GnuPG Pub Key 848D1A2D -o) ) People With Chairs Up Their Noses
Linux Kernel 2.4.20 /\\ (
Slackware 8.1 *w00t* _\_v )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE99Npoe8wcrYSNGi0RAo8KAJ
0cSi5WHdo04Nomx/FYnsVQWbcAdwCbBMpH
wHCj9fYF3PR+rvn9RwFYv2c=
=Sbcu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| +Chiron+ 2002-12-09, 12:25 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Z-Man tempted the fates in alt.os.linux
by proclaiming the following to be true:
> Finally, no...OE users don't have to top post.
I know this. But they do it anyways since they're lazy, clueless assholes.
Just like their candy-coated bullshit of an excuse for an 'OS' taught them
to be.
That's not my problem.
> I use OE on occasion for text groups, as it is relatively stable and low
> overhead.
Whatever drugs you are using are clearly superior to mine.
I want some.
> I have top posts, followed the lemmings and posted crap comments in the
> middle of other crap comments, and forced people to scroll to the bottom
> of the original post, all of the other BS replies before mine, and then
> finally find mine at the bottom, even though they had already read all of
> those other posts in the thread.
Thank you for proving the theory that regardless of how long one has been
using Usenet, you can still remain a clueless XXXXwit.
Besides, anyone who uses MOSE to post to Usenet has zero business referring
to *others* who are following Usenet standards as "lemmings", you sad XXXX.
I've got a novel idea Mr. Guru. How about you actually READ the RFC's
pertaining to Usenet usage & nettiquette. Once you have accomplished that,
then perhaps you might be able to pull your head out of your XXX.
Good luck!
You'll need it.
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html
RFC 1855
Netiquette Guidelines
http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
news.announce.newusers FAQs
http://web.presby.edu/%7Ennqadmin/nan/
- --
+Chiron+ ( Confucious say: man who sleeps with old hen
GnuPG Pub Key 848D1A2D -o) ) finds it's better than pullet.
Linux Kernel 2.4.20 /\\ (
Slackware 8.1 *w00t* _\_v )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE99N2Ce8wcrYSNGi0RAsNXAJ
4wOpD6CyT0WVpS91vwlE+g7ixvTQCg
yzTi
cdG/sHgq88/vl8NrFMsBPMU=
=7XiG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| GilesX 2002-12-09, 12:25 pm |
| On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:19:47 +0000, Z-Man wrote:
>
> First off paul...this is one of the most moronic posts I've seen from
> you. Yes...I know I'm top posting:
Paul Lutus is a troll / sexually inadequate / both*
Discuss....
*Delete as applicable
| |
|
|
GilesX wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:19:47 +0000, Z-Man wrote:
>
>
>>First off paul...this is one of the most moronic posts I've seen from
>>you. Yes...I know I'm top posting:
>
>
> Paul Lutus is a troll / sexually inadequate / both*
>
> Discuss....
>
> *Delete as applicable
as is chiron, whatever his name is.
I don't even bother replying to people who can't converse without
resorting to the use of such diminutives as "sad XXXX" and "XXXXwit".
Those people have absolutely no ability to function in an actual
conversation where at least two people discuss differences of opinion.
Z
| |
| Paul Lutus 2002-12-09, 2:25 pm |
| On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:20:56 +0000, GilesX wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:19:47 +0000, Z-Man wrote:
>
>
>> First off paul...this is one of the most moronic posts I've seen from
>> you. Yes...I know I'm top posting:
>
> Paul Lutus is a troll / sexually inadequate / both*
>
> Discuss....
>
> *Delete as applicable
What the XXXX are you posting to a Linux newsgroup for, you lame jackass?
There are perfectly adequate newsgroups designed for your deviant needs.
May I recommend alt.virtual.onanism?
*PLONK*
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
| |
| +Chiron+ 2002-12-09, 2:25 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Z-Man tempted the fates in alt.os.linux
by proclaiming the following to be true:
> as is chiron, whatever his name is.
That's correct. It's 'chiron' with nifty little +'s on either end.
'Chiron' is a Centaur from Greek Mythology.
Read a book sometime. You might learn something.
> I don't even bother replying to people who can't converse without
> resorting to the use of such diminutives as "sad XXXX" and "XXXXwit".
So I suppose that if I called you a clueless XXX-muncher you'd fuind that
offensive as well, correct?
I'm free to express myself any way I please. Sometimes I'll post a long,
informative explanation for someone that I feel is genuinely trying, but
having difficulty grasping the basics. For the lazy XXXXs. Trolls, and
those that are obviously simply a genetic throwback (such as the OP to this
thread) I'll usually call 'em a XXXXwit & be done with it.
If your overly-delicate delusions of fragility cannot handle seeing words
such as:
XXXX
COCK
PUSSY
MOTHERXXXXER
XXXXXXX
PRICK
DIPSHIT
MONKEY-XXXXER
et. al, then I strongly suggest that you KF me now and immediately.
You see, freedom of speech measn that I, or anyone else, can express
themselves in the way(s) that they are comfortable with. Ya don't like it?
Don't read my posts, you silly rabbit. Any attempts on your part to be
'clever' with some sort of pseudo-intellectual rebuttal (such as the
limp-dicked post that I am replying to.) will be met with swiftly and
harshly I'm all for intelligent debate & discussion. Sadly, you show
neither qualities to your post, and thus, can be safely delegated to the "I
wish I had a XXXXing clue" brigade. Better luck next time, sport.
> Those people have absolutely no ability to function in an actual
> conversation where at least two people discuss differences of opinion.
Sure, Bucko. You keep on repeating that and one day, maybe, some other
clueless little shit will believe you. Then you can form your very own fan
club & you can be the President! Wouldn't that be just SWELL? =)
Seriously - get a XXXXing clue.
You bore me.
- --
+Chiron+ ( If you want something very, very badly, let it
GnuPG Pub Key 848D1A2D -o) ) go free. If it comes back to you, it's yours
Linux Kernel 2.4.20 /\\ ( forever. If it doesn't, it was never yours to
Slackware 8.1 *w00t* _\_v ) begin with.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE99Pg1e8wcrYSNGi0RAnC4AK
DWNX5JooVzy35hEVj9FaCdegFQiwCg
nAc7
wqrOOioXUu9mcIdz/LODlK4=
=Ac5o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| GilesX 2002-12-09, 2:25 pm |
| On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 19:24:20 +0000, Z-Man wrote:
>> Paul Lutus is a troll / sexually inadequate / both*
>>
>> Discuss....
>>
>> *Delete as applicable
>
> as is chiron, whatever his name is.
> I don't even bother replying to people who can't converse without
> resorting to the use of such diminutives as "sad XXXX" and "XXXXwit".
> Those people have absolutely no ability to function in an actual
> conversation where at least two people discuss differences of opinion.
He also seems incapable of spotting a little bit of trolling:
===
On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 11:36:51 +0000, Paul Lutus wrote:
>
> What the XXXX are you posting to a Linux newsgroup for, you lame jackass?
> There are perfectly adequate newsgroups designed for your deviant needs.
<blah blah blah etc - desperate attempt to save face etc - snip>
===
| |
|
| :-)
GilesX wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 19:24:20 +0000, Z-Man wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Paul Lutus is a troll / sexually inadequate / both*
>>>
>>>Discuss....
>>>
>>>*Delete as applicable
>>
>>as is chiron, whatever his name is.
>>I don't even bother replying to people who can't converse without
>>resorting to the use of such diminutives as "sad XXXX" and "XXXXwit".
>>Those people have absolutely no ability to function in an actual
>>conversation where at least two people discuss differences of opinion.
>
>
> He also seems incapable of spotting a little bit of trolling:
>
> ===
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 11:36:51 +0000, Paul Lutus wrote:
>
>
>
>>What the XXXX are you posting to a Linux newsgroup for, you lame jackass?
>>There are perfectly adequate newsgroups designed for your deviant needs.
>
>
> <blah blah blah etc - desperate attempt to save face etc - snip>
> ===
| |
| +Chiron+ 2002-12-09, 3:25 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
GilesX tempted the fates in alt.os.linux
by proclaiming the following to be true:
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 19:24:20 +0000, Z-Man wrote:
>
> He also seems incapable of spotting a little bit of trolling:
Trim your posts, genius.
>===
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 11:36:51 +0000, Paul Lutus wrote:
>
>> What the XXXX are you posting to a Linux newsgroup for, you lame jackass?
>> There are perfectly adequate newsgroups designed for your deviant needs.
I saw Paul's post. I personally thought it was him attempting to be
humorous by acting in the exact manner in which you accused him of.
It's not surprising that you failed to grasp that, nor is it that your
circle-jerk buddy top-posted a stupid "happy face" to an otherwise
completely untrimmed reponse to your completely XXXX-witted post.
Both of you are a waste of semen.
Your parents must be awfully proud of how much you've achieved.
- --
+Chiron+ ( Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll
GnuPG Pub Key 848D1A2D -o) ) land among the stars. -Les Brown
Linux Kernel 2.4.20 /\\ (
Slackware 8.1 *w00t* _\_v )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE99P56e8wcrYSNGi0RAuhIAJ
9uQ4BacqlBQrqEPGJ0DqJpwqu+zACf
U3wI
7OfjsqaU3IoboXwTCwPzM9g=
=1Dp/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Alexis 2002-12-09, 3:25 pm |
| On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:07:57 +1000, Fredderic wrote:
> I'm bringing this up, because yet again I was plesently suprised when my
> Windoze standard-"open document" dialog allowed me to switch to thumnail
> view while I was looking for a bunch of pictures to zip up and send to
I really don't understand this. What is "Windoze standard-"open document"
dialog"?
Alexis.
| |
| GilesX 2002-12-09, 3:25 pm |
| On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 14:38:21 +0000, +Chiron+ wrote:
> Trim your posts, genius.
YOU trim your posts
> It's not surprising that you failed to grasp that...
YOU failed to grasp that
> Both of you are a waste of semen.
YOU are a waste of semen
> Your parents must be awfully proud of how much you've achieved.
YOUR parents must be awfully proud of how much you've achieved.
And I XXXXed your mom. Whilst she was installing Corel Linux. She told me
she likes it so much better than Slackware.
| |
| +Chiron+ 2002-12-09, 3:25 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
GilesX tempted the fates in alt.os.linux
by proclaiming the following to be true:
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 14:38:21 +0000, +Chiron+ wrote:
>
>> Trim your posts, genius.
>
> YOU trim your posts
http://howto.go.dyndns.org/apology/
> And I XXXXed your mom. Whilst she was installing Corel Linux. She told me
> she likes it so much better than Slackware.
My. That went all the way back to...what? 5th grade?
Seriously. I'm wounded.
So, smart-guy, do you have anything intelligent to say other than "ME TOO!"
and "I know you are, but what am I?". And this is coming from tittle-dee
and twittle-dumb who complained aboutn the LACK of intelligent reasoning in
replies to posts. You make me smile, ya incompetent wanna-be dork.
I just love the way you and your little friend dance for me.
Can you do the mashed-potato too?
Christ, you're pathetic.
- --
+Chiron+ ( Be a pal. Buy linux software when it's good.
GnuPG Pub Key 848D1A2D -o) ) Support linux vendors.
Linux Kernel 2.4.20 /\\ (
Slackware 8.1 *w00t* _\_v )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE99QUNe8wcrYSNGi0RAhzvAK
Dp3bSjElrVbDdLxJ3wXkuL1HrFkQCf
U+1b
7PVhb/k9pBNUWiHAhXeLRI0=
=KkRa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Paul Lutus 2002-12-09, 3:25 pm |
| On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 20:43:35 +0000, Alexis wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:07:57 +1000, Fredderic wrote:
>> I'm bringing this up, because yet again I was plesently suprised when
>> my Windoze standard-"open document" dialog allowed me to switch to
>> thumnail view while I was looking for a bunch of pictures to zip up and
>> send to
>
> I really don't understand this. What is "Windoze standard-"open
> document" dialog"?
It's just like the "Open Document" dialog in Gimp (Linux) or in my
Arachnophilia Web editor (all platforms). It shows a graphic preview as you
browse the file list.
Some truly clueless Windows types think only Windows can do this, and only
the most clueless among those clueless think this has something to do with
the Windows registry.
--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com
| |
| Sybren Stuvel 2002-12-09, 7:24 pm |
| In article <3DF4EDDB.9030001@theZone.net>, Z-Man wrote:
> I don't even bother replying to people who can't converse without
> resorting to the use of such diminutives as "sad XXXX" and "XXXXwit".
I must say that the times where Paul and Chiron have used these words,
they usually were quite appropriate.
Sybren
-- [colo
r=darkred]
>>> RUNNING A MICROSOFT GAME USING WINE <<<[/color]
sybren@sybren:Mechwarrior Mercenaries$ wine MW4Mercs.exe
INSTR_IDT_Emulate Evil attempt to exploit win9x system security flaws detected
INSTR_IDT_Emulate UNIX system security is too strong, can't emulate properly
| |
| Paul Lutus 2002-12-09, 7:24 pm |
| On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 00:40:37 +0000, Sybren Stuvel wrote:
> In article <3DF4EDDB.9030001@theZone.net>, Z-Man wrote:
>> I don't even bother replying to people who can't converse without
>> resorting to the use of such diminutives as "sad XXXX" and "XXXXwit".
>
> I must say that the times where Paul and Chiron have used these words,
> they usually were quite appropriate.
Epecially because we exercise such *restraint*. 
One might even call us four-letter-word diplomats, if that is not a
contradiction in terms.
--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com
| |
| Sybren Stuvel 2002-12-09, 9:24 pm |
| In article <pan.2002.12.10.01.20.28.473338@nosite.zzz>, Paul Lutus wrote:
> One might even call us four-letter-word diplomats, if that is not a
> contradiction in terms.
Nice one ;-)
Q: "Who are you?"
A: "I'm a FLWD"
Q: "What's that?"
A: "XXXX YOU! RTFM! STFW!"
Lol ;-))
-- [colo
r=darkred]
>>> RUNNING A MICROSOFT GAME USING WINE <<<[/color]
sybren@sybren:Mechwarrior Mercenaries$ wine MW4Mercs.exe
INSTR_IDT_Emulate Evil attempt to exploit win9x system security flaws detected
INSTR_IDT_Emulate UNIX system security is too strong, can't emulate properly
| |
| +Chiron+ 2002-12-09, 9:24 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Sybren Stuvel tempted the fates in alt.os.linux
by proclaiming the following to be true:
> Q: "Who are you?"
> A: "I'm a FLWD"
>
> Q: "What's that?"
> A: "XXXX YOU! RTFM! STFW!"
*chuckle*
It reads like a bed-time story, doesn't it? =)
- --
+Chiron+ ( Fortune's real live weird band names #267:
GnuPG Pub Key 848D1A2D -o) ) Frogs Don't Cry
Linux Kernel 2.4.20 /\\ (
Slackware 8.1 *w00t* _\_v )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE99VgEe8wcrYSNGi0RAqDcAJ
9EFvqws1IG2QKSj9DsJfEnvQvnvwCg
ys7Y
z7+DDiM5Ko30e/K84iM/Tww=
=Mjlt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
|
| In article <3DF4D0A6.7050809@theZone.net>, Z-Man wrote:
>
> darpanet). It's only been recently, when considering the whole last 25+
> years (i.e. the last 5 or 6 yeas), that someone decided they didn't like
> top posting. In the old school, anything but top posting was bad
> netiquette. All this crap of inserting comments between others comments
I guess the 'old school' must have been before I was born. Doesn't really
matter. Current netiquette exists for real reasons. I never realized how
bad top posting was until I was trying to follow some threads using
dejanews while trying to fix something on my system. I then realized how
top posting can really screw up the flow of a thread. You need to either
consistently top post or bottom post. Overall, bottom posting works
better because you can follow the important points of the thread while
scrolling down, and it usually makes more sense to post a reply to a
specific question after the quoted question.
When it comes to personal email, things are a bit different. It really
depends on the situation. But for newsgroups top posting just makes a
mess of things.
- Kurt
| |
| Jeremy Petzold 2002-12-10, 1:24 am |
| the project will decide the standard and submit it to the LSB
"Kurt" <actinouranium@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:slrnav60gj.g2d.actinouranium@crom.valhalla...
> In article <bGBI9.10666$kz2.1056571@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
Jeremy Petzold wrote:
> > who says that can not be a registry? standardize the config file layout,
>
> And who will decide on the standard? If you look at just a few different
> distros, you will see everyone has a different opinion on how it should be
> done. Even distros that are related to each other look very different.
>
> - Kurt
| |
| Jeremy Petzold 2002-12-10, 1:24 am |
|
"Robert Newson" <ReapNews@uk.co.fsnet.bullet3> wrote in message
news:3DF35242.8030908@uk.co.fsnet.bullet3...
> Jeremy Petzold wrote:
>
> > yes I have also thought that a Linux registry would be a good idea. you
> > should have a standard general layout for text files that hold the
> > configurations of the applications, and they should be XML files so that
the
> > configuration can easily be supported by 3rd party apps as well as the
>
>
> funny, the *nix "registry" already *IS* supported by 3rd party apps...any
> [plain] text editor I've used can handle them.
I was refering to applications that can handle all the text files and no not
a frigen text editor.
> > program. after this is done, it will make it easy for KDE and Gnome to
use
> > as a standard location to look for new apps to add to there Start menues
> > etc. this wil also make integrating applkication together under a single
UI
>
>
> Unlike your spelchequer.
being a dick does not make you smart
>
> > easier(if one wished to). it should also be a live filesystem so that
when
> > an app is installed it will imeadiatly register with the system.
> >
> > I think that a system like this would be better than the MS way since a
> > human can read the config files and the stuff is XML. plus it will give
a
>
>
> The *nix "registry" already *IS* human readable, without all the excess
guff
> of XML.
XML makes programming application for use with the tet file easier. human
readable != to program readable.
> > standard location for WM and DE to grab the information for their menues
and
> > make integrating diffrent WM and DEs on a single system easier.
>
>
key word in my entire post is EASIER. and all the human readable crap was
put in since MOst folks...like you...seem to have the idea that registry ==
MS .dat files.
| |
|
| In article <RTfJ9.155$eQ3.28630@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Jeremy Petzold wrote:
> the project will decide the standard and submit it to the LSB
>
'The project'? LSB? Oh great, we all agree with the direction of LSB. I
stopped taking the LSB seriously when reading one of the white papers I came
across the part that said applications are supposed to be distributed in
rpm package format. No thank you, I've been to rpm hell and back. I much
prefer Slackware tarballs. But if they are going to insist on a package
format, choose one that seems to work like what Debian has. I stopped using
Red Hat years back 'cause rpms were starting to piss me off.
Another thing I don't like about LSB is, from what I was reading, it seems
like the init has to be Sys V style, and not BSD. Many of us prefer BSD.
No, I don't much like any of these ideas that involve making all the various
distros look the same. How does the one guys sig go "Well it's all right now,
I've learned my lesson well See, you can't please everyone so you've got to
please yourself."
Once again, I say it. If a registry for Linux was necessary, then one would
be made. That's how things work with Linux. Stuff get's added out of
necessity. For instance, one security feature Linux systems are missing
compared to Windoz systems is the Secure Access Key. On a Windoz system
you can type Cntr-Alt-Del and get a window that you can supposidly
trust comes from the OS and not some trojan built to steal your password
before logging on or changing your password. I've messed with the Linux
magic key, and it didn't seem to work (haven't played it since kernel
2.2.19 though - maybe it works now). No one really appears to be worried
about it though. It's just not a big concern.
- Kurt
| |
|
| +Chiron+ wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Pep tempted the fates in alt.os.linux
> by proclaiming the following to be true:
>
>> Just to go off topic here. Why do people constantly feel the need to
>> have to point out someone's use of microsoft mail clients and then use
>> this to accuse people of being trolls?
>
> You're attempting to combine two very different things into a single
> thought.
>
> 1. All MSOE users are Trolls.
>
LOL.
> Do you have any direct evidence to support this statement?
>
> However, if what you know is *why* the more experienced users are so quick
> to single out an MSOE post as a sign of certain stupidity, just take a
> look at ANY of "Bruce Burhans"'s posts.
>
>> We in the nix community
>
> Who is this "we" that you are referring to?
>
>> know that nix based workstations are not prolific throughout the
>> workplace and therefore there is a very high chance that nix users at
>> work will have to use windows computers.
>
> I suppose your employers don't mind if you read/post to Usenet on company
> time, in this economy, either, right?
>
No actually. I use the ng sparingly at work to find answers to questions I
do not know the answers to. NG's are a tool my company finds useful. It's
down to the individuals own initiative as to how much time is spent reading
news.
> ISP's Nix Forum Support
> Scared and lazy, ISP's make helping a crime
> http://www.broadbandreports.com/sho...24145?mode=flat
>
> You might wanna re-think your justification there, chuckles.
>
> If you're posting to Usenet, FROM work, you've got bigger issues to fry.
>
Don't understand that statement?
>> That does not make them trolls.
>
> Absolutely true.
> However, it *does* make them clueless and lazy assholes.
>
So using microsoft tools makes people clueless lazy aresholes? You have
some weird ideas.
>> Similarily, just because someone's idea does not meet someone else's
>> notions of how things should be done, does not make them a troll.
>
> Oh XXXXing please. I *KNOW* you're not trying to DEFEND that assholes
> "idea" of making *nix become "just like" M$....right?
>
> Man, if you weren't already so pitiable I'd be roasting you right now.
>
> *linux* are linux-based newsgroups.
> You shouldn't be posting here unless you actively use Linux in one form or
> another.
>
> If you *do* choose to post here, you should be making every effort
> possible to do so FROM a *nix-based client.
>
> If you chose to ignore all of the abvove, post to &nix groups with MOSE,
> THEN spout off about "how hard" *nix is and "Wouldn't it be easier if we
> made it just like M$ does?" then you deserve every XXXXing flame you
> receive. Get a XXXXing clue already.
I was prepared to have a chat with you about this but now I know you are a
complete wanker ther is no point. You are not much higher than a troll
yourself.
>
> BTW:
>
>> User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1
>
> You *do* realize that Knode is a broken & shitty excuse for a news client
> as well, right?
>
> Knode has become the new refuge for all these wanna-be *nix weenies that
> don't want to be singled-out for using MSOE. KDE/Knode is just as lame.
>
> - --
> +Chiron+ ( Fortune's real live weird band names #510:
> GnuPG Pub Key 848D1A2D -o) ) People With Chairs Up Their Noses
> Linux Kernel 2.4.20 /\\ (
> Slackware 8.1 *w00t* _\_v )
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.3.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE99Npoe8wcrYSNGi0RAo8KAJ
0cSi5WHdo04Nomx/FYnsVQWbcAdwCbBMpH
> wHCj9fYF3PR+rvn9RwFYv2c=
> =Sbcu
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
|
| Paul Lutus wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 08:44:21 +0000, Pep wrote:
>
> / ...
>
>> Just to go off topic here. Why do people constantly feel the need to
>> have to point out someone's use of microsoft mail clients and then use
>> this to accuse people of being trolls?
>
> It is entirely unjustified -- unless the people in question really are
> trolls. Then the fact that a person is top-posting, running OE, wrong
> about Linux and has wandered away from any valid topic, together make a
> convincing case.
>
>> We in the nix community know that nix based workstations are not
>> prolific throughout the workplace and therefore there is a very high
>> chance that nix users at work will have to use windows computers.
>
> Not if they are posturing as Linux gurus. It is very simple, really.
> Example -- if I make a claim about a complex shell script that I have
> posted, someone on a Windows machine cannot test it and must either accept
> or reject it on other than direct evidence. They are handicapped.
>
Sorry I don't understand that response. Are you saying that if you posture
as a nix guru that you would not be using windows at work?
>> That does not make them trolls. Similarily, just because someone's idea
>> does not meet someone else's notions of how things should be done, does
>> not make them a troll.
>
> But there really are trolls, and there really are people who, by running
> Windows, remove themselves from any meaningful, active participation in
> certain discussions.
I agree that there are trolls and myself I do not bother to get involved in
long drawn out arguments with them.
>
> Funally, OE users must top post. There is no flexibility about this
> (unless the user laboriously rearranges his post by hand, each and every
> time). This by itself is the mark of someone not serious about Usenet --
> or Linux.
>
I'm not sure I completely agree with this statement. Being limited to
windows tools due to work commitments does not in itself mean you are not
serious about nix or ng (IMHO). Myself, I am fortunate in that I work on
freebsd; solaris and linux workstations and servers at work but all of the
rest of the firms infratructure is windows based and there is not a lot I
can do about that. Even I have to work on a windows box for certain
developments but 90% of the time the computer just sits there gathering
dust.
| |
|
| Andy Clayton wrote:
> Pep wrote:
>
>> Just to go off topic here. Why do people constantly feel the need to
>> have to point out someone's use of microsoft mail clients and then use
>> this to
>> accuse people of being trolls? We in the nix community know that nix
>> based workstations are not prolific throughout the workplace and
>> therefore there is a very high chance that nix users at work will have to
>> use windows
>> computers. That does not make them trolls. Similarily, just because
>> someone's idea does not meet someone else's notions of how things should
>> be done, does not make them a troll.
>
> I guess "freedom of choice" is hard to acheive... even from the NIX
> world. Give some dudes a few millions and they probably will create and MS
> like monopoly as in "if you don't use what I use: you're a moron and I'll
> destroy you" kind off philisophy...
LOL.
Sounds about right.
| |
| Chu Mai Fat 2002-12-10, 3:25 am |
|
"Kurt" <actinouranium@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:slrnavbc2j.hug.actinouranium@crom.valhalla...
> How does the one guys sig go "Well it's all right now,
> I've learned my lesson well See, you can't please everyone so you've got
> to please yourself."
Ricky Nelson posts here?
| |
| Joe Fredrickson 2002-12-10, 4:24 am |
| Tue, 10 Dec 2002 02:00 pm will from hence forward be known as the day
+Chiron+ blabbered:
> Sybren Stuvel tempted the fates in alt.os.linux
> by proclaiming the following to be true:
>< | | |