Why is it that it seems like Gnome seems to be implementing Windows bad practices? The last thing Linux needs is a Windows registry. One of the greatest benefits of Linux IMO is the ability to configure applications in config files… not having to use some custom tool to manage the configuration.
At least it’s got a fairly well defined schema unlike the Windows registry which is really just a very big dumping ground with a completely unenforced schema. You can just browse it and the settings are all there, complete with value type, default value and sometimes even a description. And it’s reactive too usually, so you change the setting and it applies immediately to running apps.
Tbh I’ll take that over KDE’s million config files spread out everywhere that are mostly undocumented and trashes your formatting and comments everytime it updates the file.
It’s actually a pretty good implementation of a registry overall.
Dconf is amazing. Lots of tweaks in a centralised place, searchable, with naming that makes sense, and documentation. It’s standardised and it’s legible.
It’s not like the windows registry, in which stuff just gets dumped and isn’t standardised at all.
Config files can be a mess. They’re strewn around your system everywhere, aren’t always named in a way that even lets you know they’re a config file, you have to hunt them down individually, and syntax differs between them.
Saying it’s like the windows registry seems kinda true from a surface level, but all the things that are actually wrong with the Windows registry aren’t present in dconf.
Similar systems exist on other DEs, and this isn’t a new thing, it’s been around for a couple of decades.
Beginners won’t agree with you. Imagine their reaction after hearing that they have to edit a config file written in an obscure script language they never heard of
Why is it that it seems like Gnome seems to be implementing Windows bad practices? The last thing Linux needs is a Windows registry. One of the greatest benefits of Linux IMO is the ability to configure applications in config files… not having to use some custom tool to manage the configuration.
This isn’t new. It’s been around since at least 2006 in the Gnome 2 days when everyone seemed to prefer Gnome
Dconf was a continuation of Gconf
Gconf was text though (well XML actually but not binary).
At least it’s got a fairly well defined schema unlike the Windows registry which is really just a very big dumping ground with a completely unenforced schema. You can just browse it and the settings are all there, complete with value type, default value and sometimes even a description. And it’s reactive too usually, so you change the setting and it applies immediately to running apps.
Tbh I’ll take that over KDE’s million config files spread out everywhere that are mostly undocumented and trashes your formatting and comments everytime it updates the file.
It’s actually a pretty good implementation of a registry overall.
dconf is really good as it allows for admins to tweak the desktop experience.
It is closer to group policy although GP objects are just registry changes.
There also is xfconf on xfce4
Dconf is amazing. Lots of tweaks in a centralised place, searchable, with naming that makes sense, and documentation. It’s standardised and it’s legible.
It’s not like the windows registry, in which stuff just gets dumped and isn’t standardised at all.
Config files can be a mess. They’re strewn around your system everywhere, aren’t always named in a way that even lets you know they’re a config file, you have to hunt them down individually, and syntax differs between them.
Saying it’s like the windows registry seems kinda true from a surface level, but all the things that are actually wrong with the Windows registry aren’t present in dconf.
Similar systems exist on other DEs, and this isn’t a new thing, it’s been around for a couple of decades.
deleted by creator
Beginners won’t agree with you. Imagine their reaction after hearing that they have to edit a config file written in an obscure script language they never heard of
and how is it simpler to tamper with a binary tree with different tools?
By having a GUI, even if it’s a very bad one. It’s all a matter of first impression
The cats out of the bag with systemd. Nowhere to go but down.
This is almost as annoying as the twat above that needs to shit on KDE at every opportunity.
No, I lied. It’s more annoying.