From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Oct  1 13:54:23 1995
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA28965
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 1995 13:54:23 -0700
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA28960
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 1 Oct 1995 13:54:18 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA24238; Sun, 1 Oct 1995 13:54:07 -0700
To: "Garrett A. Wollman" <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin Makefile 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 01 Oct 1995 13:25:09 EDT."
             <9510011725.AA22062@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> 
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 13:54:07 -0700
Message-ID: <24236.812580847@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> > Would you like to see everything from .emacs to .fvwmrc *go away*?
> 
> No.

Given that Garrett isn't much focused on applications side, I already
assumed "no" there. :)

> It already /is/ done correctly.  Perhaps you mean `something like
> sysctl(3) but done the way Jordan wants'?

Ordinary users can write variables?  User or group local variables can
shadow system ones?  Not new ideas, not even my ideas.  A proper
registry would have to allow that and I'd see sysctl() as being simply
folded into it.  Why have two parallel mechanisms?

				Jordan