Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 22:09:37 -0400 From: "Kutulu" <kutulu@kutulu.org> To: <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <002401c22a12$57659c10$fe663244@KutuluWare> References: <200207120055.g6C0tbpQ084565@dotar.thuvia.org> <3D2F5602.9039F5DE@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Lambert" <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 6:19 PM > At this point, the best approach is probably a registry. > > I personally don't know if I'm ready to fight the "Not Invented Here" > war that trying to implement a registry entails. As an idea that > came from Windows, there is a gut-level reaction among many UNIX > people that tries to pretend that engineers employed by Microsoft > (or, sometimes, even RedHat) could not possibly have a good idea on > their own, or solve a problem in a way that was not already thought > of by themselves. While I agree in general with this logic (that just because it's Microsoft's idea doesn't automatically make it bad), even THEY eventually concluded that the registry was a really bad way to manage a centralized software "package" database (COM components), and are moving towards a more directory-based, localized package management system with XP/.NET. I'm not yet fully versed on the whole .NET Manifest structure but it basically uses an XML file, located alongside the binaries I beleive, to describe everything Windows needs to know about an installed application/component/ whatever. Of course, history would indicate they'll discover this is a really bad idea by 2004 and can it, so who knows. --K To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?002401c22a12$57659c10$fe663244>