25 ms·

> I love editing files in /etc ending in conf! Some are pseudo-INI (OpenSSL), some are pseudo-XML (Apache2 and friends), some are some kind of unholy amalgamati

> I love editing files in /etc ending in conf! Some are pseudo-INI (OpenSSL), some are pseudo-XML (Apache2 and friends), some are some kind of unholy amalgamation between C and YAML (nginx, dhcp daemons), others are some kind of TOML derivative (systemd, NetworkManager) and there's also some diet JSON in there! Netplan uses YAML, of course, though JSON will probably also parse. It's always a fun adventure to reverse engineer these file formats. Sure it would be great if all configuration was written in a single configuration format. Life would also be so much easier if there was only one ultimate programming language so we would only have to learn one. Unfortunately reality is messy and for a variety of reasons we have different formats. As a side note, I don't think I ever ran into a syntax error for a system configuration file, because I couldn't figure out the format. The first time that happened to me was when editing a yaml file for CI. > Of course, most important files contain whitespace separated lines of configuration of which the meaning is only clear if you read the comments above it (cron, fstab, crypttab) or secretly bash scripts (GRUB config and many other files in /etc/default). Well there is "man fstab", "man 5 cron" etc., so the file formats and options are formatted. However the complaint that the default files are so well commented that one understands what the different options are without actually reading the docs is just weird to me. How is that worse than some random registry key that is not documented anywhere without comments (they are not possible AFAIK) and without knowing what type they should take. > Then there's user configuration stuff. Sure, HKLM vs HKCU is kind of weird, but the user configuration structure in the Linux home directory is an argument against intelligent design. ~/.config, ~/.programname, ~/.local or ~/snap/<name>/current/<randomfile>? Which program saves configuration inside ~.local? I'm not aware of any and they generally should not. Also adding adding snap to that list is a bit besides the point, I don't think containers typically save their configuration in the registry either? > Roll the dice and find out! You may be able to find the setting you're looking for in the DConf Editor but if you can't find it there, grep and prayer is your best bet. I actually dislike that gnome uses dconf (which is a better organised registry), I think it would be better if they instead would have text files as well. I understand it's largely for performance reasons. > The Windows registry may be the result of a flawed execution, but I'll take it over the mess in Linux any day. So how do you know what registry keys to change to achieve a certain configuration (without documentation, because you didn't like that on Linux either)? > Sadly, the registry has fallen out of fashion in Windows so now managing random configuration files somewhere in %USERPROFILE% (if you're lucky and the programmer hasn't hardcoded C:\Users\<username> as a path) just like on Linux. By the way, who needs the "hidden" FS flag anyway? Just start the filename with a period and pretend the ls-bug-dressed-up-as-a-feature for hiding files and folders is a standard every platform sticks to!

nomel 4y ago
> Sure it would be great if all configuration was written in a single configuration format. I think the root cause is there is and was no readily available system standard/interface. I would claim that the majority of the files are doing boring things and could have, and would have, been made in some standard format, and possibly placed in some standard organization, if a system standard had existed. Or, perhaps I've too heavily discounting the desire for nerds to create something new, even when reasonable, but not perfect, alternatives already exist. Systemd showed me how homogenization and standards are generally disliked, when it comes to things around configuration files, even if there's absolutely massive utility.
jeroenhd 4y ago
> As a side note, I don't think I ever ran into a syntax error for a system configuration file, because I couldn't figure out the format I remember struggling to get some open source VPN package to work right. I swear I've read through the manuals three or four times but it just wouldn't work and the error messages were meaningless. I know most of the obscure formats now out of experience, but it's still not great. DNS BIND configuration and zones (and the accompanying AppArmor configuration) also caused me more trouble than necessary. Configuring and debugging inetd configuration was also something I never hope to do again. > Well there is "man fstab", "man 5 cron" etc Of course there is, but those aren't exactly light reading. It's not that the formats are difficult to find, it's that there's no consistency to the formats themselves with nameless columns that you need to figure out by reading several paragraphs of text. > Which program saves configuration inside ~.local? I'm not aware of any and they generally should not. Also adding adding snap to that list is a bit besides the point, I don't think containers typically save their configuration in the registry either? In my ~/.local/etc I see fish and bash_completion.d, for example. I don't know what programs created those, but they're there. I see some PipeWire files in ~/.local/state. ~/.local/share contains many files ending in ".conf" (most of them Flatpak, but also Kodi and GnuPG). I prefer them stuffing their config in .local rather than ignoring XDG, though. IMO Snap fits the list perfectly because it's not sold as "containers", it's sold as an "app store" even though it's focused on GUI containers. And I'm still mad about Snap not even bothering to use a capital letter in their home directory name. I like dconf in that most settings are actually documented in context. They're searchable, use a standard format, and have structure. The ability to distinguish default values from custom settings is also very nice. IMO it's the Windows Registry but with a good editor and an even worse API. > So how do you know what registry keys to change to achieve a certain configuration Most of the time, I can use the find tool to find exactly what I need in the registry. I barely need to touch it anyway since most Windows settings are configurable from the GUI. Sure, it's certainly not the best config management system, but it's design is much better than the hodgepodge of configuration files unrelated systems use. I admit that on disk, the Windows registry format is atrocious. However, the concept of a single, unified, backuppable, remotely manageable configuration system is just much better than "let's stuff some files in /etc and let people find out by making them go through our docs". I don't know where to look for config files on Linux, on most Windows tools I at least know what program I need to open to edit the configuration. I'd like DConf or at least XDG to get used more often because IMO the Linux ecosystem is the worst of two options.

nomel 4y ago

> Sure it would be great if all configuration was written in a single configuration format. I think the root cause is there is and was no readily available system standard/interface. I would claim that the majority of the files are doing boring things and could have, and would have, been made in some standard format, and possibly placed in some standard organization, if a system standard had existed. Or, perhaps I've too heavily discounting the desire for nerds to create something new, even when reasonable, but not perfect, alternatives already exist. Systemd showed me how homogenization and standards are generally disliked, when it comes to things around configuration files, even if there's absolutely massive utility.

jeroenhd 4y ago

> As a side note, I don't think I ever ran into a syntax error for a system configuration file, because I couldn't figure out the format I remember struggling to get some open source VPN package to work right. I swear I've read through the manuals three or four times but it just wouldn't work and the error messages were meaningless. I know most of the obscure formats now out of experience, but it's still not great. DNS BIND configuration and zones (and the accompanying AppArmor configuration) also caused me more trouble than necessary. Configuring and debugging inetd configuration was also something I never hope to do again. > Well there is "man fstab", "man 5 cron" etc Of course there is, but those aren't exactly light reading. It's not that the formats are difficult to find, it's that there's no consistency to the formats themselves with nameless columns that you need to figure out by reading several paragraphs of text. > Which program saves configuration inside ~.local? I'm not aware of any and they generally should not. Also adding adding snap to that list is a bit besides the point, I don't think containers typically save their configuration in the registry either? In my ~/.local/etc I see fish and bash_completion.d, for example. I don't know what programs created those, but they're there. I see some PipeWire files in ~/.local/state. ~/.local/share contains many files ending in ".conf" (most of them Flatpak, but also Kodi and GnuPG). I prefer them stuffing their config in .local rather than ignoring XDG, though. IMO Snap fits the list perfectly because it's not sold as "containers", it's sold as an "app store" even though it's focused on GUI containers. And I'm still mad about Snap not even bothering to use a capital letter in their home directory name. I like dconf in that most settings are actually documented in context. They're searchable, use a standard format, and have structure. The ability to distinguish default values from custom settings is also very nice. IMO it's the Windows Registry but with a good editor and an even worse API. > So how do you know what registry keys to change to achieve a certain configuration Most of the time, I can use the find tool to find exactly what I need in the registry. I barely need to touch it anyway since most Windows settings are configurable from the GUI. Sure, it's certainly not the best config management system, but it's design is much better than the hodgepodge of configuration files unrelated systems use. I admit that on disk, the Windows registry format is atrocious. However, the concept of a single, unified, backuppable, remotely manageable configuration system is just much better than "let's stuff some files in /etc and let people find out by making them go through our docs". I don't know where to look for config files on Linux, on most Windows tools I at least know what program I need to open to edit the configuration. I'd like DConf or at least XDG to get used more often because IMO the Linux ecosystem is the worst of two options.