Linda Walsh said the following on 02/07/2013 03:02 AM:
You're showing you're ignorance of history here.
No... you are -- unix rc files were never structured after MS .ini files. From the systemd manpages:
The syntax is inspired by XDG Desktop Entry Specification[1] .desktop files, which are in turn inspired by Microsoft Windows .ini files.
Why do you think Windows .ini files were the start of thing? Windows and MS-DOS did not spring from the brow of Bill Gates like Athena did after Hephaestus cleaved Zeus's forehead with an ax. MS-DOS was purchased from Tim Patterson who had developed it as 386 clone of - COUGH COUGH - CP/M. You think not? Look at the correspondence in the system calls. And where do you think the model for CP/M comes from? Look to DEC, PDP-8 DOS such. I seem to recall that Willie Crowther's "Colossal Cave" for the PDP-8 saved settings in a .ini file, what was that, a 1977 version of Adventure? I'm told, though don't know of my own experience, that Interleaf LISP used .ini files, though I don't know their format. Your quotation doesn't go back far enough. What do you think Microsoft's .ini files were inspired by ? You go on to say
There's a difference between personal .rc files and system rc files.
See [3]
System rc files are usually kept under /etc/<...>
As I've commented, the operative bit there is "usually". Some programmers have not held to that convention and have later been brought into line.
Been that way for as long as I've been around unix...
Two things: 1. Maybe you haven't looked at examples - such as the KDM example I have 2. The change from K&R's V7 to UNIX Systems Group's SYSIII brought in many oddities that persisted even though SVR4[1]. SCO had a developer's book and some of the programs I purchased though that were very off in the way handled configuration! As Felix points out, even with the rationalization of FHS[2], openSuse don't conform. We have to remember that these standards are not set in stone, that they evolve as we rationalise and innovate. Even FSH admits the use of /etc/has evolved: <quote>In early versions of the UNIX Implementation Document from Bell labs, /etc is referred to as the etcetera directory,[24] as this directory historically held everything that did not belong elsewhere </quote> That's very generic! [1] I once had the job of running a source code diff between V7 and SYSIII and later SYSIII and early SYSV. Much of the SYSIII code was of very poor quality compared to the K&R releases. [2] You'll note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard makes great use of the phrasing "some..". Not all versions of Linux conform to all of FHS and it was worse in the past. [3] Note that https://access.redhat.com/knowledge/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/3/ht... says "The /etc/ directory is reserved for configuration files that are local to the machine". It says nothing about config files relevant to dealings with other machines (is that what /usr/etc is for?) such as cluster management, and does not include an exception for per user config files. There are other contradictions implicit in the way that page is written, for example /usr/local/etc is local to the machine! -- It is therefore not unreasonable to suppose that some portion of the neglect of science in England, may be attributed to the system of education we pursue. -- Charles Babbage -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org