CPU Frequency Scaling

[David Nielsen]

tir, 05 12 2006 kl. 11:23 +0100, skrev 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!!!

Solution, fix gconf rather than complain over davidz and friends at
least suggesting a forward minded solution to the horror that is "human
readable" configuration files.

- David Nielsen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dette er en digitalt underskrevet brevdel
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20061205/90052d41/attachment.sig>