From owner-freebsd-current Sat Feb 2 7:13:26 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from web21207.mail.yahoo.com (web21207.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.165]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 18A3337B402 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 07:13:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20020202151314.7281.qmail@web21207.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [210.83.59.27] by web21207.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 02 Feb 2002 23:13:14 CST Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 23:13:14 +0800 (CST) From: =?gb2312?q?Yifeng=20Xu?= Subject: Re: Junior Annoying Hacker Task To: tlambert2@mindspring.com, bts@babbleon.org Cc: pdfardy@mac.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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. Regards, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Lambert" To: "Brian T.Schellenberger" Cc: "Paul Fardy" ; ; 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" program? > > > > Yuch. Why? > > Clearly, you are not a "Junior Annoying Hacker". > > > > > The point of the program would be to edit the "FreeBSD > > > Registry", rc.conf, and make it look just like the Windows > > > Registry in the editor, using "_" as the implied path > > > 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 editor > (note "the editor" might be "vi", so you can't complain 8-)). > > How is path-to-file + path-to-key-in-file any different > than absolute-path-to-key? > > The only thing that seems different is the implied component > 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 for the > 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. > > regedit > Registry > Export Registry File... > backup > > regedit > Registry > Import Registry File... > backup > > > - 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 system. > > firewall_enable="NO" > > 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 the rc.conf > is one of its main weaknesses. A single missing quotation mark > will result in an inaccessible system, if you don't have console > 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 "sourceable" by > a shell script, before permitting the edits to replace the valid > contents, and keep a backup of the previous file for you. > > Alternately, we can just call a spade a spade, and admit that > what we have is a flat file registry, which pretends to be > hierarchical by using "_" as a hierachy delimiter for component > seperation. > > Actually, this is a lot like the Manx subdirectory support in > the shell program that came with the developement environment, > and used "topdir/subdir/finaldir" as the name of the directory, > and simply hid the names of all but the last component. 8-). > > -- Terry _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? 登录免费雅虎电邮! http://mail.yahoo.com.cn 无聊？郁闷？高兴？没理由？都来聊天吧！—— 雅虎全新聊天室! http://cn.chat.yahoo.com/c/roomlist.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message