Why the Windows Registry sucks … technically
rwmj.wordpress.com
rwmj.wordpress.com
How would global shared settings look without a registry? Like Unix configuration files. This is a step backwards, as there is no unified way to read Unix configurations. Some things are stored in environment variables, some things are stored in XML files, some things are represented as special files, and some things are stored in INI-style files. Something like window color would be handled by the display manager, but other configuration settings would need to be hunted down at runtime.
What's really better, "read system.window.background.default_color.[rgb] as ints," or "parse /etc/x/conf/x.conf as an .ini file, look for the variable background_color. It is stored in the format (r,g,b). If it is not present, the default is (255,255,255)."?
I like the Unix way better myself, as it's more about building up functionality through composition, rather than setting out to create grand unified architecture. Speaking (possibly too) generally, I find large architectures tend to be harder to fix.
You've just described the registry conceptually.
Basically it's a boring debate as Linux does have a number of X windows related registries. For example GConf and X resources (xrdb).
There's your problem right there. The correct number is ONE. ONE registry, ONE widget set, ONE global, standard, accepted set of keybindings.
That's what the Linux community needs to make happen in order to be taken seriously as a desktop OS.
Microsoft does seem to be slowly moving away from it (see point #9). But outright replacing it just isn't an option.
Do a cost/benefit analysis and you realize that it would be very expensive to replace it (while maintaining backwards compatibility) and 99.9% of people don't care one way or the other.
Now rgrep /etc for a config setting is broken, apps leave garbage sitting in there upon uninstall and you need a stupid GUI tool to deal with it.
I don't think the Windows Registry is a bad idea by itself, it's just a poor implementation and very badly organized.
UNIX already has a standard for storing configuration. It is simple, text-based, scriptable and standardized.
And there is no need for "standard API" here. Its too late. GConf doesn't cover 99% of whats on a typical Ubuntu system, so why did they invent this "standard" for 1% of all system settings? Why fragment the system?
Your solution means that every app interested in a setting has to put a file change notification on the conf file, then reparse the entire thing and diff it to see what changed.
That's not my experience.
Actually, even then they'd be better in /root/.<whatever>.
I do dislike grouping unrelated application settings into ~/.gconf -- before, if you screwed up a setting you could always just rm -rf .<whatever>, without losing anything unrelated.
Oh, God yes. It's awful. There are severe usability problems with lumping everything together. (Of course, this is outside the issue of the original post.)
In addition, if GConf is the One True Way to store Gnome settings, why do I have ~/.gconf, ~/.gconfd, ~/.gnome, ~/.gnome-rdp.db, ~/.gnome2, ~/.gnome2-private, ~/.gpilotd, ~/.gpilotd.pid, and ~/.gtk-bookmarks?
So what's the point of this "standard API" then? Just to make life harder for KDE/XFCE folks to run GTK apps that were written by unfortunate souls who use gconf and suddenly packaged with gconf-daemon as a dependency?
Skype is not really a part of the linux environment... they do what they want and they would probably prefer to just port the windows solution, but I don't see anything they could not store in gconf.
Sound settings - gnome-volume-control uses it, same with gnome-sound-recorder, gstreamer too - sound server itself is system-wide, so it doesn't have place in gconf.
Vim uses scripts, same as Irssi, so fair enough it cannot be done
Firefox could use gconf - it just needs a key=value set.
Apache, postfix, wifi, sound daemons - those are servers/system-wide providers... From the project site: "GConf is a system for storing application preferences. It is intended for user preferences; not configuration of something like Apache, or arbitrary data storage." But I think I lost the main point somewhere - here it is: of course you cannot do everything in gconf (scripts), but most of the app preferences fit this model perfectly - and many of them do use gconf - just check the list of apps using it on your system.
The point? As someone else said, GConf provides change notifications, something which is an integral part of the Gnome UI experience: instant-apply for all settings. If you change a window manager hotkey in a config tool, Metacity/Compiz will immediately notice the change. If you change some Gedit setting in a different tool then Gedit will immediately pick it up. Firefox doesn't use GConf because they already have their own cross-platform config storage system, and they suffer for it: if I change the fonts (font settings are stored in GConf) then every GTK app immediately picks up the change, but not Firefox - I have to restart it.
You said GConf is a reinvention of the registry, and for some reason you apply a negative label on that. None of the technical reasons on why the registry sucks, as mentioned in the article, is true for GConf:
- GConf does not store settings in a big monolithic file that tries to reimplement the filesystem. It stores each config directory as a separate XML file on the regular filesystem. These XML files are parseable and editable with standard XML tools, which are plentiful.
- GConf has pluggable backends. The XML one is just the default one. You can write a backend that stores settings in an SQlite database, a MySQL database, or even the Windows registry, or maybe as files in /etc if that's what you really want.
- GConf is completely open. There are no weird file format glitches. The default XML files are portable between machine architectures.
Basically the only reason you hate GConf is because it looks like the registry, and because the registry is bad, everything that looks like it must automatically be bad regardless of their actual design and implementation merits, right? What is this, 2002? I thought people were finally over this nonsense but apparently not.
Pardon me, but "instant apply" feature is not enough to excuse for this mess: yeah, I change something in Gconf and maybe 20% of apps pick up my change instantly. A whopping 20%, but INSTANTLY, was that the goal?
They should have ALL kept using standard /etc + ~/.xxrc files or came to an agreement to use something truly global, so I could enjoy the same font rendering or a freaking window colors in Skype and Pidgin. I can live without instant config changes but at least I could have grepped "color" and "window" appearing on the same line somewhere in /etc and in ~/.gtk or ~/.kde.
Tools like GConf are destroying one of the greatest UNIX strengths: scriptability. I keep versions of config files for selected software under git and simply push it to /etc when I need to quickly set up a new machine. Nobody needs freaking "pluggable back-ends" because everybody needs to be able to instantly backup/restore selected applications configuration in a standard way
And is it really worth it to run a freaking daemon so you can see your config changes instantly take effect?
Also, your comment has "XML" in it. Are you sure? Seriously? Why not PDF? It's about as good as XML for storing key=value pairs, there are lots of tools developed for it too! And just as useles for sed/awk/grep.
This disease of bloating up simple things into monstrosities based on "pluggable architectures" must be contagious: some infected gnome devs must have sat at the same table with GRUB-2 folks, so now we've lost a great bootloader.
So now we have, Gnome-specific config storage, KDE-specific config storage, and the rest all uses its own config storage. So now we have at least two classes of apps that use their own standard config storage. Getting rid of GConf would mean all of those apps would use their own config storage, creating even more fragmentation. That would be better, how?
> Pardon me, but "instant apply" feature is not enough to excuse for this mess: yeah, I change something in Gconf and maybe 20% of apps pick up my change instantly. A whopping 20%, but INSTANTLY, was that the goal?
No idea where you pulled the 20% number from. It's always 100% in my experience with the exception of Firefox and font settings.
> They should have ALL kept using standard /etc
/etc is not a standard. Did you ignore what everybody else has been saying?
> + ~/.xxrc files
Oh like ~/.gconf?
> or came to an agreement to use something truly global, so I could enjoy the same font rendering or a freaking window colors in Skype and Pidgin. I can live without instant config changes but at least I could have grepped "color" and "window" appearing on the same line somewhere in /etc and in ~/.gtk or ~/.kde.
Agreed, but this problem has got nothing to do with GConf. Getting rid of the GConf you so hate will not solve this very problem.
> Tools like GConf are destroying one of the greatest UNIX strengths: scriptability.
gconf-tool. Completely scriptable. Enjoy.
> I keep versions of config files for selected software under git and simply push it to /etc when I need to quickly set up a new machine.
Put ~/.gconf in git. Enjoy.
> Nobody needs freaking "pluggable back-ends" because everybody needs to be able to instantly backup/restore selected applications configuration in a standard way
Yeah, if only those stupid GConf files are backup-able with standard tools like 'cp' or 'tar'! Oh wait... they are!
> And is it really worth it to run a freaking daemon so you can see your config changes instantly take effect?
It is really worth requiring an entire windowing system and fancy graphics just so one can see images in a web browser? We should just stick with telnet dammit!
Yes. Why not run a daemon? It eats maybe a few hundred KB of private RSS. Even an old desktop system by today's standard has 256 MB of RAM. The daemon also improves startup performance by caching a small set of active configuration settings in memory instead of having to constantly load them from disk, something which is not possible if every app parses the config files.
> Why not PDF?
Why PDF? I'll tell you why not PDF, because it's not a good format for storing config, what's why! You said there are lots of tools for editing PDF - but none of them are usable for editing key-value pairs. As opposed to XML tools. If the XML file hard to read? Use xmllint to reformat or to indent it. Edit with a standard text editor. grep, sed, awk, all work, I have no idea what you're talking about.
No, I think your fear for 2010 technology and your tendency to stick with 1970s stuff is more of a disease.
No. If Gnome-specific and KDE-specific config did not exist, we all would have standard ini-style config files sitting in /etc (for system/root) and in ~/.gnome and ~/.kde respectively with each program owning a file named after itself.
Also, the biggest problem with windows registry isn't its internal structure: users don't care about that. The issue with registry is that it grows over time and never shrinks due to buggy and forgotten programs that leave junk in there. That's #1 reason why people complain about their computers getting slower. GConf happily inherits this fatal flaw because find ~/.gconf/ -name "program" won't find anything.
Again: gconf-tool is an example of a non-standard little turd that I was referring to when expressed my annoyance with managing multiple configuration systems. And how is placing ~/.gconf under git helps me to quickly restore configuration for selected apps? Have you looked inside of .gconf? Have you seen wifi.conf file in there? Those who have would no doubt pick /etc. One more time: gconf is not find/awk/grep/sed friendly, hence it is a maintenance nightmare.
Yes. Why not run a daemon? It eats maybe a few hundred KB of private RSS.
How typical for a 2010 technologist: "I want this little tiny toy feature which will eat only a few insignificant hundred KB...". You know what? Users have hundreds of little tiny little needs that would enjoy running all time time. I can keep naming things forever that a computer is capable of doing, and if you multiply those hundreds by your "few hundred KB" very quickly you'll end up with something like Vista: functional yet barely capable of running itself. Moreover, are you sure gconfd eats hundreds of K? Care to look again?
Sending configuration change notifications is NOT a significant feature to have its own daemon. Even Windows is smart enough to run a single svchost.exe service that groups tens of little background features like that into a single process.
No, I think your fear for 2010 technology and your tendency to stick with 1970s stuff is more of a disease.
The industry seems to be voting my way: it is simple 1970s pieces of Linux tech that dominate competition, yes - those that read their config from ini files in /etc. And your 2010 "pluggable technology" is still waiting for a year of Linux desktop.
Yes - it contains the hierarchy mapped to directories. In my case `.gconf` contains directories `apps`, `desktop`, `system`. Then `apps` contains a subdirectory for every application using gconf - for example `ekiga`. You can revert the chosen directory there to revert the version for a single application. I honestly don't know what problems are you seeing.
> Have you seen wifi.conf file in there?
No, I don't have it. All my configs are stored in respective app's directory in a `%gconf.xml` file. Are you sure that wifi.conf is managed by gconf? Maybe it's just some random file that was put there by a broken app?
Not removing configuration: yes, GConf doesn't remove old configuration automatically. Guess what, neither does everything else. Uninstall nano and /etc/nanorc will happily stick around until you manually remove it.
'find' not finding anything: I guess you didn't use find correctly:
bash:~/.gconf$ find -name 'gedit*'
./apps/gedit-2
./apps/gnome-settings/gedit
Grouping services together into a single process: yes, you can save memory, but is it worth to? Suppose we have a low memory system with only 128 MB of memory. There are about 10 GNOME daemons, each with a private RSS of between 500 KB and 2 MB. I'd say the total memory consumption is 12 MB. Suppose you group them together to save the process overheads, and save 30% of memory. Memory usage has gone down to 8.4. Compared to the 128 MB of RAM you've saved 2.8%. Whohoo! Now was that worth it? I think developers have better things to do with their time than to save 2.8% memory on a 128 MB system from years ago.
As hardware capacities continue to rise, the point of diminishing returns draws closer and closer: soon the developer will have to spend 100 hours of time just to reduce the already tiny 10 MB memory usage by 2%. All this to please old-gregg who would otherwise continue to complain. Now do you honestly think all that labor is worth it?
(Disclaimer: I wrote Xfce's current config storage system.)
You're also talking about /etc ... which is go-rw, and user configuration files are all over $HOME.
And then gconf is text-based and scriptable and standarized (xml)
False. Go ahead and cat a few files in /etc/:
nsswitch.conf: key/value, separated by colon. Lists of values are space-separated
fstab: per-line record-based, 6 space-separated fields
passwd: per-line record-based, 7 colon-separated fields
fuse.conf: key/value, separated by equals sign
hdparm.conf: hierarchical, using curly braces; inside that, key/value, separated by equals sign
What "standard" are you referring to?
- Apache: hierarchical key/value, separated by space. Hierarchy can be started and ended with XML-like-but-not-quite syntax, where the hierarchy container itself can contain a value.
- Nginx: hierarchical key/value, separated by space. Hierarchies can be started and ended with brackets.
- screenrc: key and one or multiple values, separated by space.
- nanorc: key/value, separated by space.
- /etc/network/*: shell scripts.
- inittab: ??? no idea what the formal syntax is.
People who complain about GConf with the reason that "/etc is superior" usually have no clue how things really work, yet they still behave like they're experts.
I see nothing wrong in each program storing configuration data in the most convenient way for them.
For Gnome applications there could be standard APIs. And, as a bonus, they should store the configuration data in plain text files according to whatever format Gnome finds convenient, but not making us use specific tools to edit it, much like the Founding Fathers of Unix didn't tie config files to ed.
Which is how GConf will look in 10 years.
It's not nearly as bad a solution than the Windows Registry, but it's not perfect either and has some good chances it's not a step in the right direction.
And as someone else mentioned, the files are plain XML that you can edit with a text editor. No special tools.
There is no One True Way. Only a bunch of good ways, a bunch of bad ways, and a bunch of sorta-ok ways. Just because there isn't one amazing way that is obviously the best, it doesn't mean that the alternative is for everyone to use different, incompatible formats.
"I see nothing wrong in each program storing configuration data in the most convenient way for them."
Clearly you've never had to administer systems before. Or, if you have, you're so used to it at this point, you don't remember what it was like when you were starting.
I would much prefer to only have to understand and remember a single config file format and save my time and effort for things that actually matter.
But yes, I'm a hypocrite: I designed and implemented Xfce 4.6's configuration storage system... yet another incompatible format.
The .gconf directory structure is simply stored in the filesystem. It's not a replacement for /etc, but for the dot files individual apps would otherwise use for per-user configuration. Configuration data is just XML, and can be grepped, edited and deleted from the filesystem just as any other dot files can.
The deep directory structures and XML aren't quite as friendly to traditional Unix tools as are traditional dot files, but those tools remain entirely usable, while apps get a shared API for configuration.
But a few of the criticism coming from the linked blog seems of the form "the Windows Registry is only compatible with Windows".
Since the Registry is very specific to the current version of Windows the user is running I don't see why, from a technical point of view, should effort be wasted in trying to make it more compatible with other platforms or versions of Windows.
The registry is an abstraction and there's only a few supported ways to access it (regedit, .reg files and the registry API basically).
I'll be the same as complaining that the format of the /etc files is not well document, is not standard across different flavors of UNIX and everyone sticks whatever they want there.
Is there any reason why a new version of Windows couldn't do away with the registry and create a layer of abstraction to allow programs in a "compatibility mode" to run normally but have its registry interactions translated to the new system? Wouldn't that be a similar principle to what Wine does?
The way you'll share parts of the registry will be using .reg files, those are just plain text so could easily be read anywhere.
Based on what the article points out, I would speculate that Microsoft spends a lot of energy trying to catch and fix all the ways the registry migration breaks when doing an OS upgrade. Not only is that is all wasted energy, it will never hit 100% success rate because there will always be something the porting engineers never saw in their systems.
At the time, application developers stored settings in INI files in the \Windows directory. Reading this name=value file was very slow. The registry was an attempt to centralize storage of that data, speed up application startup by reducing the time required to settings data from it, and to respond robustly to disk corruption.
Of course, after it was created, everybody and their grandpappy (COM, MSI/Darwin, etc.) decided to abuse it as a general-purpose store. Now that XML file load is considered zippy enough to be done at application start, developers are encouraged to have a private configuration file in their own application directory and per-user ones in the per-user directories.
If you should find yourself creating an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of X, stop! Throw it away and use X instead. You'll save yourself and everyone who has to interact with your system a whole lot of grief.
But filesystems have been in use long enough that most bugs have been fixed or worked around in the tools. And of course the guys who invented the 'filesystem' didn't have any databases to use instead.