Amen to ini files. I really hate when you need to spend hours looking for some binary setting in the registry to fix some program behaivor. Don't get me started on a corrupted registry. Chris Smith -----Original Message----- From: tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org [mailto:tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org] On Behalf Of Karl Bongers Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 10:58 AM To: TCLUG Mailing List Subject: Re: [TCLUG] Order of Execution On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 12:23:27AM -0600, Sam MacDonald wrote: > I have a related question about symlinks or "symbolic links" for the group. > > One of the things about NT that makes it easy to understand is the use > of the registry. The registry links objects to what the object is used > for or to objects it uses. It organizes everything in a central Hierarchy. > No central registry exists in Linux that I have found, it feels You make the registry sound so clean and neat, I've always considered it a vast dumping ground for unrelated, unused configuration settings. I kinda preferred INI files, I'm a simple person. Maintaining the register is like dumpster diving. > scattered to me at this point. I can't go to one place and find the > guts of everything. Yes you can, its called "/etc" and it's easy enough to use. All the system configuration settings are in etc. Personal configurations are in home directories in a somewhat less organized way. (A home/person/etc might have been nice) > The essence of Linux is the File System and Symlinks if I'm not > mistaken, "Yes"? Yes, I think you are right. But not symlinks, symlinks is just a semi-useful trick that some file systems support. I doubt that a basic unix system requires them. > I need to be sure I'm understanding "in the Linux world" what I > understand in the NT world. > > Could it be said (without opening a can of flames) that, > symlinks do something similar to registry entries by pointing to > other objects. They are a secondary reference(or link) to files or folders, they can be used to organize(or disorganize) a file system. > I'm trying to take my NT registry knowledge that is the guts of the OS > and translate Linux in to that understanding. Remember NT was > designed by VAX guys, they took the guts of VAX and translated it in > to the NT registry. Kinda like what Compaq did with the PC BIOS ;-) I would not consider NT registry as the guts, its just a massive configuration file in binary format to save some space and provide some control(that perhaps the file system didn't provide). I don't know anything about VAX, did it have a registry? The guts in my opinion are the kernel and drivers that make up the system. > I don't know why but I need to know the lowest levels of the OS first > and learn up. I also need to learn from the desktop down at the same > time. It works for me. I've found that once you get used to it, the unix file system is logically organized. You can easily distinguish the various components and work with them. I can't say the same for the Windows system. It seems to change from year to year, today its tele-tuby land with "My music" and My programs", tommorrow it will be something else ("Our musac" and "Our Video", with "Your digital rights management"). NT/XP is an improvement over 95/98. I kinda wonder if people will find a way to hose it up as bad as 95/98. You know, your neighbor says, hey my computer is running really slow and crappy and has all these pop-ups. Then you have to go run msconfig and turn off dozens of useless "in your face" crapware that has accumulated. Hmm, I think I coined a new term here, "crapware". :) _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list