DConf configuration system
apenwarr at nit.ca
Wed Apr 6 23:57:19 EEST 2005
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 10:38:09PM +0200, Hongli Lai wrote:
> I've been watching XDG for quite a while now, and experience shows that
> technology is not the problem - getting everybody to accept something, is.
Indeed. Politics is the problem, not technology. At least Avi (of elektra)
seems to recognize this :)
> UniConf sounds like a good system. The plugin/backend system allows
> everybody to chooce exactly what he wants, be it flat file or XML or ini
> or database or whatever. Is there any reason why anybody would not want
> to adopt UniConf as the XDG configuration system? I don't want to see
> yet-another-project getting ignored because of lack of interest. It's
> about time something happens.
It's simple: because it doesn't *mean* anything if UniConf is adopted as the
XDG configuration system. It would be more meaningful if UniConf were
adopted as either the KDE or Gnome configuration system; then, because it
has neither a G nor a K in its name, we could conceivably try to convince
the opposite project that they want to use it too. But the fact is that
neither KDE or Gnome has any particular interest in changing their
configuration system right now; what they have is good enough for most
In any case, people who want to do so can use UniConf with either KDE *or*
Gnome or both; in a sense, there is no switching needed.
The real question is: what is the problem we are trying to solve by creating
an XDG standard for this?
More information about the xdg