![]() |
2010-10-12
, 19:09
|
Posts: 992 |
Thanked: 995 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ California
|
#92
|
![]() |
2010-10-12
, 19:10
|
Posts: 1,522 |
Thanked: 392 times |
Joined on Jul 2010
@ São Paulo, Brazil
|
#93
|
Which is a disaster, since you need to go through the step of exporting it to a file.
...
Certainly more complex than opening and reading/writing from a text file. And the registry isn't human readable without using the registry editor or first exporting to a .reg file.
Linux is not Windows. It is really that simple.
![]() |
2010-10-12
, 19:12
|
Posts: 1,746 |
Thanked: 2,100 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#94
|
Things that are shared, could go under their own subfolder insider a folder dedicated for shared things, no need to pile everything.
In messy situations where one program needs one version and the other program needs another version and the thing they need different versions wasn't designed to have more than one version in the system, with Windows we just use the order where things are looked for, first in the folder where the executable is, and then in %PATH% (there are probably some other steps in between and perhaps beyond, and i think each folder listed on %PATH% is checked in order, not sure if it's starting with the first or the last); i don't see why a similar approach couldn't work under Linux.
it's jsut one or two steps more than looking for the right file to send
From what i remember, to read you called a system function specifying the path of the key, and to write it was the same, but you also specified the type of data and the contents.
![]() |
2010-10-12
, 19:21
|
Posts: 992 |
Thanked: 995 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ California
|
#95
|
Things that are shared, could go under their own subfolder insider a folder dedicated for shared things, no need to pile everything.
In messy situations where one program needs one version and the other program needs another version and the thing they need different versions wasn't designed to have more than one version in the system, with Windows we just use the order where things are looked for, first in the folder where the executable is, and then in %PATH% (there are probably some other steps in between and perhaps beyond, and i think each folder listed on %PATH% is checked in order, not sure if it's starting with the first or the last); i don't see why a similar approach couldn't work under Linux.
![]() |
2010-10-12
, 19:31
|
Posts: 1,522 |
Thanked: 392 times |
Joined on Jul 2010
@ São Paulo, Brazil
|
#96
|
![]() |
2010-10-12
, 19:32
|
|
Posts: 1,389 |
Thanked: 1,857 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Israel
|
#97
|
![]() |
2010-10-12
, 19:34
|
|
Posts: 1,389 |
Thanked: 1,857 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Israel
|
#98
|
What is the point of having thigns actually be just files in the filesystem if it's just a mess of things piled up in the same place? If there is a whole layer of software making that mess not be a mess, then whats the point of using the file system ?
The point is having things be organized, if there is need to always know where somthing is, don't hardcode a path, use a way that no matter where the things is, you know it.
![]() |
2010-10-12
, 19:39
|
Posts: 1,522 |
Thanked: 392 times |
Joined on Jul 2010
@ São Paulo, Brazil
|
#99
|
![]() |
2010-10-12
, 19:47
|
Posts: 992 |
Thanked: 995 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ California
|
#100
|
What is the point of having thigns actually be just files in the filesystem if it's just a mess of things piled up in the same place? If there is a whole layer of software making that mess not be a mess, then whats the point of using the file system ?
The point is having things be organized, if there is need to always know where somthing is, don't hardcode a path, use a way that no matter where the things is, you know it (like an environment variable, or identifying the path for the thing somewhere, be it a registry, or a filesystem abstraction like symlinks that always have the same name, under a folder that is always the same etc). Hardcoding values that people might have some reason (even reasons you can't think off) to want to change, is a bad habit.
In messy situations where one program needs one version and the other program needs another version and the thing they need different versions wasn't designed to have more than one version in the system, with Windows we just use the order where things are looked for, first in the folder where the executable is, and then in %PATH% (there are probably some other steps in between and perhaps beyond, and i think each folder listed on %PATH% is checked in order, not sure if it's starting with the first or the last); i don't see why a similar approach couldn't work under Linux.
NOKIA N900: IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND
How to use HotspotShield in the N900
Google Voice from outside the US + Free international calls: LEARN HOW HERE!!!