System- and Desktop-Conf (Re: D-Conf)

C. Gatzemeier c.gatzemeier at
Tue Mar 8 20:58:08 EET 2005

Yeah, depending from where you look at it, there are quite some differnces, 
I've come to think.

Desktop programing types may have a nice API, a good feature set and one 
back-end as goal for the d-conf in mind.

Sysadmin programing types (with interest for GUI/desktop support) may have 
unintrusive support for many apps (file formats/semantics/backends) and easy 
(or automatic) config-GUI generation as goals for the S-conf in mind. 
Changing the backend (/etc/*)of many/all apps is probably not on the 
wishlist, even less moving to a non-human-readable text file based approach.

Am Monday 07 March 2005 15:28 schrieb Joerg Barfurth:

> But if you have a frontend framework and a unified api for the actual
> parsing, generating and activation, then building a useful GUI for
> another system becomes much easier and may in many cases be done in a
> declarative fashion without requiring a C programmer.

Also much of the ever ongoing backend maintance work can be avoided and 
distributed! when files/semantics are also defined in a declarative 
non-hardcoded fashion. And that is part of the Config4GNU concept that has 
those things you state explicitly in mind. If you're interested, you can find 
more about it at and

I've come to think though, that a "D-Conf" and "S-Conf" System will probably 
not be integrated. At least very unlikely right from the start.


More information about the xdg mailing list