Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluetomcat | Hacker News Reader

On a more philosophical level, the Unix convention is the "liberal" one, giving application writers more freedoms. Liberty enables more flexible applications and more chaos at the same time. A highly structured approach might be beneficial in the short run, but it might prove to be burdening beyond its due date.

View on HN

Application writers are free to use which ever format they choose on Windows, as well. The Registry is just yet another option -- Microsoft does not force developers to use it. I don't see the Unix convention as the more "liberal" one, here. It typically has _one less_ option.

> The Registry is just yet another option

It's not just "another option". It's a system standard option that exists, and can be easily accessed programmatically. There's no equivalent in Unix, since there is no standard, and whatever is available will depend on the distribution.

"Here's a built in option, but do whatever" is very different than "do whatever!".

Do you know where Microsoft calls out the Registry as the current best practice in https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/?

My point was that having something built into the system is very different than having a dependency stricken free for all that is outside of the system. For this reason, especially for the majority of Window's life, it was not just "another option", it was a "hey, this is built in" option.

As your link show, Windows has homogeneity, with good config options built into the frameworks. In those frameworks, those built in config options can't be consider just "another option". There's no real homogeneity in *nix, so the only options is misc files to put misc paths.

Its partly about where burden is placed. Making it easy for developers sometimes makes it hard on users and admins. And some times it becomes security issue because of varied approaches. Not sure there is right answer especially in open source where its hard to get devs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com