CPU Frequency Scaling

[Thomas M Steenholdt]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> 
> What admin likes the g-conf storage format ?
> What admin likes the fact that unless you're careful gconfd will happily
> overwrite manual modifications because you've done them in vim and not
> (insert name of neutered GUI gconf tool there)
> 
> I like XML but I'll take an old GNOME .ini conf file over a gconf one any
> day.
> 
> Instead of being admin-friendly the gconf storage backend is
> over-optimized for developpers.
> 
> Admins want/need stable schemas, sane file organization, stable
> formatting, pretty indenting, XML schemas registered in places vim and
> emacs can find them, safety of editing with whatever tool the admin likes
> best, no magic binary cookies use, explicit documentation
> 
> Developpers want a system that can re-read conf files at blazing speed (so
> their app can read 20 times the same setting without impacting
> performance), with low change impedance (so they can stuff last-minute
> settings there or even change the format from version to version), and no
> hard documentation requirements (yay for burying configuration access in
> gconf-editor). They don't care if settings are not accessible without
> writing dedicated tools/scripts because writing code is what they do for a
> living.
> 
> I wonder that anyone is surprised by the admin anguish over making a core
> infrastructure element depend on gconf.
> 

Agreed!!!

/Thomas