Don't try to persuade somebody to accept Microsoft
concept, they have never played Microsoft Systems, so
they really don't know what you are talking about, I
personally like the Microsoft's Registry idea,
Microsoft is not always bad, but I never try to force
somebody to accept the idea, it wastes time. if UNIX
or FreeBSD are doing Registry, It must not be FreeBSD
or UNIX, I never think UNIX's system admin will work
in the way Windows admin are doing. leave Vi, UNIX is
not UNIX, FreeBSD is not FreeBSD.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brian T.Schellenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Paul Fardy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Junior Annoying Hacker Task
> "Brian T.Schellenberger" wrote:
> > > Does someone want to write a "registry editor"
> > Yuch. Why?
> Clearly, you are not a "Junior Annoying Hacker".
> > > The point of the program would be to edit the
> > > Registry", rc.conf, and make it look just like
> > > Registry in the editor, using "_" as the implied
> > > component/terminal component (key) seperator.
> > You are surely insane. Or trying to make a point
which isn't true, which is
> > pretty similar.
> OK, say we view it as "read only", except for the
> (note "the editor" might be "vi", so you can't
> How is path-to-file + path-to-key-in-file any
> than absolute-path-to-key?
> The only thing that seems different is the implied
> seperator at the file/file-content boundary, and the
> translation of the "_" into the file space component
> seperator, and back.
> It's all just a matter of represntational geometry
> same information, isn't it?
> > No, there's are enormous differences:
> > - There's a well-known plain-text file so it can
be readily backed up and
> > restored.
> Export Registry File...
> Import Registry File...
> > - There is not a single point of failure for all
progams; it only controls
> > basic system functions and services, it does not
control applications, so if
> > it fails, your applications aren't all screwed up,
and if your applications
> > screw up terribly they can't corrupt your basic
> 8-) 8-).
> > Indeed, the lack of an API to *write* to
/etc/rc.conf is one of it's greatest
> > strengths: It is far less vulnerable to major
corruption if things go nutty.
> "vi"? "sed"? "any text editor"?
> The lack of constraints on how one may interact with
> is one of its main weaknesses. A single missing
> will result in an inaccessible system, if you don't
> access, and one that must be repaired, if you do.
> There's not even a "virc" equivalent to "vipw", that
can do a
> consistency check on the file to make sure it's
> a shell script, before permitting the edits to
replace the valid
> contents, and keep a backup of the previous file for
> Alternately, we can just call a spade a spade, and
> what we have is a flat file registry, which pretends
> hierarchical by using "_" as a hierachy delimiter
> Actually, this is a lot like the Manx subdirectory
> the shell program that came with the developement
> and used "topdir/subdir/finaldir" as the name of the
> and simply hid the names of all but the last
> -- Terry
Do You Yahoo!? 登录免费雅虎电邮! http://mail.yahoo.com.cn
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message