Secrets was created to expose hidden Preferences that one normally accesses via the command line because they're not present in the plist files.
Plist files are just XML files. I can read or edit or script them with the normal bash tools; in fact, I've done just that before. No biggie. Also, the plist files are yes, stored in ~/Library, but that's hardly the same thing as Gconf or the Registry. Scott -- R. Scott Granneman [email protected] ~ www.granneman.com Full list of publications @ http://www.granneman.com/publications My new book: Google Apps Deciphered @ http://www.granneman.com/books "It matters not whether you win or lose; what matters is whether I win or lose." ---Darrin Weinberg On Nov 19, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Nathan Nutter wrote: > Mac OS X does the same thing with preferences. Data is stored in a > data directory, in a preferences file, and then finally the > application itself. Preference files are just as mysterious, hence the > creation of Secrets. > > So I think the real question is why the three biggest operating > systems all use centralized storage of preferences? > > Spinning some of those disadvantages: > > single point of failure = single point of troubleshooting > centralized configuration = makes it *easier* to backup data that is > actually unique to the user > > I don't know about you but I could care less about backing up my > /Applications directory but you can bet I back up ~/Library! > > --Nathan > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Scott Granneman <[email protected]> wrote: >> I guess my first question would be, why replace conf files? They're >> ASCII, so they're readable & writable & scriptable by just about >> anything. They're easily portable & copyable. They work. >> >> The Windows Registry is a big fat mess. Wikipedia goes into detail at >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_registry#Advantages_and_Disadvantages: >> >> "# Centralizing configurations makes it difficult to back up and >> recover individual applications. >> >> # In practice, manual manipulation of the registry might be required >> where applications that are using the Registry do not implement >> configuration through their user interface. >> >> # Because the Registry structure is contained in binary files, damage >> to it is difficult to repair. Because information required for loading >> device drivers is stored in the registry[25], a damaged registry may >> prevent a Windows system from booting successfully. Note that damaged >> configuration files have the same result to other operating systems, >> but these can be repaired more easily using a text editor. >> >> # Any application that does not uninstall properly, or does not have >> an uninstaller, can leave entries in the registry. Over time the >> computer suffers "software rot" as the registry fills with left-over >> and possibly incorrect entries. >> >> # Installers and uninstallers become complex, much more than just >> copying files into a folder. >> >> # Applications that make use of the registry to store and retrieve >> their settings are unsuitable for use on portable devices used to >> carry applications from one system to another. >> >> # Since an application's configuration is centralized away from the >> application itself, it is often not possible to copy installed >> applications that use the Registry to another computer. This means >> that software usually has to be reinstalled from original media on a >> computer upgrade or rebuild, rather than just copying the user and >> software folder to the new computer. >> >> # The Windows Registry is said to be a single point of failure.[26][27] >> >> # There are thousands upon thousands of different keys used by many >> different Windows applications, and vendors rarely, if ever, document >> the purpose of these keys to the outside world. Such information is >> useful to the power user or system administrator." >> >> Now, granted, the same article, at >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_registry#Equivalents_in_other_operating_systems, >> does say this about Gconf: >> >> "However, in GConf, all application settings are stored in separate >> files, thereby eliminating a single point of failure." >> >> Great. But what about all the other criticisms? They seem apropos to me. >> >> The point being, Gconf was a bad idea to begin with. And on top of >> being a bad idea, it sounds like it was poorly implemented. Hey, now >> we're approaching Microsoft levels of incompetence! Well done. >> >> Scott >> -- >> R. Scott Granneman >> [email protected] ~ www.granneman.com >> Full list of publications @ http://www.granneman.com/publications >> My new book: Google Apps Deciphered @ http://www.granneman.com/books >> >> "I read about an Eskimo hunter who asked the local missionary priest, >> 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?' 'No,' said >> the priest, 'not if you did not know.' 'Then why,' asked the Eskimo >> earnestly, 'did you tell me?'" >> ---Annie Dillard >> >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Robert Citek <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> My guess is that it is supposed to be an auxiliary to (or replacement >>> for) the ~/.*rc files. That's not a bad thing, if done well. gconf >>> doesn't seem to be done well. Or if it is done well, it is poorly >>> documented. >>> >>> Regards, >>> - Robert >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Scott Granneman <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Gconf was one of the worst things GNOME ever did. After years of knowing >>>> how complex, user-hostile, & fragile the Windows Registry was, GNOME >>>> decided to implement the same kind of thing for Linux. Brilliant! >>> >>> -- >>> Central West End Linux Users Group (via Google Groups) >>> Main page: http://www.cwelug.org >>> To post: [email protected] >>> To subscribe: [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe: [email protected] >>> More options: http://groups.google.com/group/cwelug >>> >> >> -- >> Central West End Linux Users Group (via Google Groups) >> Main page: http://www.cwelug.org >> To post: [email protected] >> To subscribe: [email protected] >> To unsubscribe: [email protected] >> More options: http://groups.google.com/group/cwelug >> > > -- > Central West End Linux Users Group (via Google Groups) > Main page: http://www.cwelug.org > To post: [email protected] > To subscribe: [email protected] > To unsubscribe: [email protected] > More options: http://groups.google.com/group/cwelug -- Central West End Linux Users Group (via Google Groups) Main page: http://www.cwelug.org To post: [email protected] To subscribe: [email protected] To unsubscribe: [email protected] More options: http://groups.google.com/group/cwelug
