Posted Apr 1, 2004 2:45 UTC (Thu) by elanthis
Parent article: A look at GNOME 2.6
"One is unpleasantly reminded of the Windows Registry when tinkering with GConf."
We can all agree that it's so much better when apps each have their own configuration file, located in slightly different places under slightly different naming conventions, usually in incompatible file formats requiring swaths of duplicated code to deal with them, with no ability to provide central system administration or lock-down, no change notification, no ability to safely share settings between multiple apps, no ability to store settings in a centralized manner to be available to multiple machines, etc etc. Right?
The only big user-related difference between GNOME's GConf and the nearly identical systems used in KDE, OS X, etc is that GConf has a user-visible graphical tool for modifying the settings files. Yes, that's right, KDE has a configuration system that stores files in XML files, just like GConf, and provides a lot of the same functionality as GConf. Again, the only difference is that KDE apps shove every possible bell and whistle somewhere into the UI. Both of them are just as "unpleasantly" similar to the Windows Registry. GNOME just doesn't hide the config system behind masses of UI clutter.
Is GConf the utopian implementation of a settings database? No. Of course not. It is, however, something that developers, system adminsitrators, and even users actively want. (See first paragraph for reasons why.)
to post comments)