How was the gnome registry some how worse? Microsoft didn’t even have a document that could describe how theirs worked, much less an organizational structure. At least Gnomes was basically simple words and categories. And they built a settings manager for it too.
Not that I use gnome much, but still this is silly.
I know this is linuxmemes, but if you want a serious answer, I can provide, lol.
It’s worse because it is an amateurish attempt at recreating windows like registry (like most things Gn*me lol).
boring technical details
Let’s start from the top:
Microsoft didn’t even have a document that could describe how theirs worked
Oh, really, I remember reading enormous amounts of info on MSDN describing how the internal registry hives work in 1998 (yes, I am that old lol) Also, there were/are excellent books on the topic, i.e. “Windows Internals” by Mark Russinovich. Can you tell me where I can find more info on how dconf works, what about dconf internal structure and organization? I don’t want to read the source code.
At least Gnomes was basically simple words and categories
Right, can you tell me what this dconf dump is about:
You mean like simplified UI for poor man’s regedit?
Windows registry is horribly over-engineered very very high performance binary database (dconf is a Gvariant binary db also, lol) deeply integrated within the NT kernel and overall system, it supports access virtualization, transparent path override, robust ACLs, and more. IMO, M$’ biggest mistake was allowing 3rd party access to the hive in the early days. Then backwards compatibility kicked in and the rest is history.
Don’t get me wrong it sucks, massively, but this attempt of Gn*me/freedesktop INI db is a joke, like the OP’s argument
Right, that’s the reason alright, lol. Remember dconf on Gn*me? It’s like registry on windows, but worse.
No, Linux is still not ready for desktop, and it has nothing to do with this fallacy of yours.
Since when is Linux = Gnome?
How was the gnome registry some how worse? Microsoft didn’t even have a document that could describe how theirs worked, much less an organizational structure. At least Gnomes was basically simple words and categories. And they built a settings manager for it too.
Not that I use gnome much, but still this is silly.
I know this is linuxmemes, but if you want a serious answer, I can provide, lol. It’s worse because it is an amateurish attempt at recreating windows like registry (like most things Gn*me lol).
boring technical details
Let’s start from the top:
Oh, really, I remember reading enormous amounts of info on MSDN describing how the internal registry hives work in 1998 (yes, I am that old lol) Also, there were/are excellent books on the topic, i.e. “Windows Internals” by Mark Russinovich. Can you tell me where I can find more info on how dconf works, what about dconf internal structure and organization? I don’t want to read the source code.
Right, can you tell me what this dconf dump is about:
[org/gnome/nm-applet/eap/fea8b3cc-21a2-4a3d-a3bb-72b7459247b7] check-time=uint32 1742505110You mean like simplified UI for poor man’s regedit?
Windows registry is horribly over-engineered very very high performance binary database (dconf is a Gvariant binary db also, lol) deeply integrated within the NT kernel and overall system, it supports access virtualization, transparent path override, robust ACLs, and more. IMO, M$’ biggest mistake was allowing 3rd party access to the hive in the early days. Then backwards compatibility kicked in and the rest is history.
Don’t get me wrong it sucks, massively, but this attempt of Gn*me/freedesktop INI db is a joke, like the OP’s argument