Comments on: Spooks dig GConf http://bethesignal.org/blog/2007/04/11/spooks-dig-gconf/ where we're going, we don't need roads... Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:55:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Sitsofe http://bethesignal.org/blog/2007/04/11/spooks-dig-gconf/#comment-982 Sitsofe Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:17:37 +0000 http://perkypants.org/blog/2007/04/11/spooks-dig-gconf/#comment-982 Here's a link to the paper (I couldn't see it in your original post) http://selinux-symposium.org/2007/papers/04-gconf.pdf Here’s a link to the paper (I couldn’t see it in your original post) http://selinux-symposium.org/2007/papers/04-gconf.pdf

]]> By: Philip http://bethesignal.org/blog/2007/04/11/spooks-dig-gconf/#comment-981 Philip Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:01:59 +0000 http://perkypants.org/blog/2007/04/11/spooks-dig-gconf/#comment-981 I bet the NSA have already merged it. In fact, they're probably already running Gnome 3.0 before gnome have even designed it. I bet they even have a little gdesklet applet that streams info about who's emailing whom about blowing up the USA. I bet the NSA have already merged it. In fact, they’re probably already running Gnome 3.0 before gnome have even designed it. I bet they even have a little gdesklet applet that streams info about who’s emailing whom about blowing up the USA.

]]> By: pvanhoof http://bethesignal.org/blog/2007/04/11/spooks-dig-gconf/#comment-980 pvanhoof Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:16:33 +0000 http://perkypants.org/blog/2007/04/11/spooks-dig-gconf/#comment-980 The last time I looked at the gconf-dbus branch, it was not done how it should be. In stead of leveraging the features what DBUS was created for, it used DBUS exactly like how you would do GConf in ORBit-2 (so it's or was a one on one port). Since DBUS is actually slower than ORBit-2, this will do no good nor will it solve any of GConf's problems other than wanting to fix a no-problem (not wanting to depend on ORBit-2 for religious reasoning, which I don't consider to be useful). It would be far better to listen to what OpenOffice.Org, Mozilla, KDE's KConfig and GNOME have to say about configuration storing. Out of those stories make a DBUS specification and a prototype implementation. And after that specification is agreed and done, let competing parties implementing competing implementations. And after that. Once those competing implementations start being used, let the best survive. I once started such a specification under the name "deconf-spec". You can still find it here: https://svn.cronos.be/svn/deconf/deconf-spec/trunk/src/index.xhtml The last time I looked at the gconf-dbus branch, it was not done how it should be. In stead of leveraging the features what DBUS was created for, it used DBUS exactly like how you would do GConf in ORBit-2 (so it’s or was a one on one port).

Since DBUS is actually slower than ORBit-2, this will do no good nor will it solve any of GConf’s problems other than wanting to fix a no-problem (not wanting to depend on ORBit-2 for religious reasoning, which I don’t consider to be useful).

It would be far better to listen to what OpenOffice.Org, Mozilla, KDE’s KConfig and GNOME have to say about configuration storing. Out of those stories make a DBUS specification and a prototype implementation. And after that specification is agreed and done, let competing parties implementing competing implementations.

And after that. Once those competing implementations start being used, let the best survive.

I once started such a specification under the name “deconf-spec”. You can still find it here:
https://svn.cronos.be/svn/deconf/deconf-spec/trunk/src/index.xhtml

]]> By: jdub http://bethesignal.org/blog/2007/04/11/spooks-dig-gconf/#comment-979 jdub Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:44:53 +0000 http://perkypants.org/blog/2007/04/11/spooks-dig-gconf/#comment-979 <a href="http://perkypants.org/blog/2007/04/11/spooks-dig-gconf/#comment-978" rel="nofollow">Jonathan</a>, "Spooks" is a modern colloquialism for "spies", certainly much more recognisable in current language than its use as a racial slur. It's even the title of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooks" rel="nofollow">pretty good BBC series</a>. Jonathan, “Spooks” is a modern colloquialism for “spies”, certainly much more recognisable in current language than its use as a racial slur. It’s even the title of a pretty good BBC series.

]]> By: Jonathan Carter http://bethesignal.org/blog/2007/04/11/spooks-dig-gconf/#comment-978 Jonathan Carter Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:21:57 +0000 http://perkypants.org/blog/2007/04/11/spooks-dig-gconf/#comment-978 Have you watched the movie "The Human Stain"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Stain Not sure how you meant 'spooks', but sometimes you have to be a bit aware of racial sensitivities around these things! Have you watched the movie “The Human Stain”? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Stain

Not sure how you meant ‘spooks’, but sometimes you have to be a bit aware of racial sensitivities around these things!

]]>